GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt ( talk) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is indeed clear and concise, the lede is a tad bit skimpy and per WP:LEAD could be expanded a bit more, but it's good enough for GA and that could be something to address in a subsequent peer review afterwards. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See above about lead section, and also words to watch. I did some copyediting but words like "though", "also", "althought", "but", "therefore", and "however", would be something to watch out for during copyediting and remove if at all possible. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | See below about citation-needed-tags. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I've added a bunch of cites-needed-tags. These will need to be addressed before the review can move on. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | See above about cite-needed tags. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Okay here, covers major aspects appropriately. I'd recommend going forwards expanding more about Censorship and Adaptation sects. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes, but see above about actually expanding subsects, particularly the part about history of Censorship please. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems here, NPOV presentation throughout. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | If we exclude simple vandalism by IPs, stable history, just keep an eye on this in the future. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | File:Hollywood10.jpg = missing fair use rationale for use on this article page. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | See above about image usage missing fair-use rationale for this page. Also, what about an image of author Ray Bradbury? |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | GA on Hold for now. Please address above issues and post, below, with an update. — Cirt ( talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC) |
GA on Hold for now. Please address above issues and post, below, with an update. — Cirt ( talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Just dropping in ... I see a few other issues :
In return, I'll see if I can cite some of the citation neededs, but I can't promise anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, totally fine, no problems. Keep us posted here, — Cirt ( talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Been over a month since GA Hold, so closing this one for now. Feel free to let me know if you want to renominate for a 2nd GA Review at a later point in time, and if I've got a chance I'll take another look. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 20:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt ( talk) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is indeed clear and concise, the lede is a tad bit skimpy and per WP:LEAD could be expanded a bit more, but it's good enough for GA and that could be something to address in a subsequent peer review afterwards. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See above about lead section, and also words to watch. I did some copyediting but words like "though", "also", "althought", "but", "therefore", and "however", would be something to watch out for during copyediting and remove if at all possible. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | See below about citation-needed-tags. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | I've added a bunch of cites-needed-tags. These will need to be addressed before the review can move on. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | See above about cite-needed tags. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Okay here, covers major aspects appropriately. I'd recommend going forwards expanding more about Censorship and Adaptation sects. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes, but see above about actually expanding subsects, particularly the part about history of Censorship please. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems here, NPOV presentation throughout. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | If we exclude simple vandalism by IPs, stable history, just keep an eye on this in the future. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | File:Hollywood10.jpg = missing fair use rationale for use on this article page. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | See above about image usage missing fair-use rationale for this page. Also, what about an image of author Ray Bradbury? |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | GA on Hold for now. Please address above issues and post, below, with an update. — Cirt ( talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC) |
GA on Hold for now. Please address above issues and post, below, with an update. — Cirt ( talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Just dropping in ... I see a few other issues :
In return, I'll see if I can cite some of the citation neededs, but I can't promise anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, totally fine, no problems. Keep us posted here, — Cirt ( talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Been over a month since GA Hold, so closing this one for now. Feel free to let me know if you want to renominate for a 2nd GA Review at a later point in time, and if I've got a chance I'll take another look. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 20:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)