GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 22:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing. But before I look at it more seriously, it would be helpful to address the following issues:
— David Eppstein ( talk) 22:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The nominator left a note on my talk page, which for convenience I copy here:
However, I think the sourcing is still deficient. Every claim in every sentence must be sourced. If two or more consecutive sentences of the same paragraph have the same source, it's only necessary to footnote the last one, but footnotes should not span more than one paragraph. As the article is now, many sentences (in all sections) and four entire paragraphs (in the nib flexibility section) are missing footnotes, and many footnotes that look like they span multiple sentences really only cover the material in the final sentence of the span. Additionally, the source in the "Limiting issues" section is an unreliable-looking web page that itself cites Wikipedia, violating WP:CIRCULAR, and the MacKinnon source in the "New patents and inventions" section also looks dubious for reliability. Again, there are many primary (patent) sources and many bare-url sources that need to be fixed. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
At this point I gave up on a detailed reading. The sourcing problems already indicated above have been papered over but are far from solved. My impression is that well over the majority of individual sentences are still badly sourced. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
There has been no additional progress in the last two weeks, and the article is still far from meeting the GA criteria. At this point, I think what the article needs is for an editor to go through the article slowly and carefully, checking that each phrase is meaningful, correct, and sourced to scholarly rather than promotional sources, and that the overall article makes sense as a whole (another issue that needs work but that the review comments above didn't really touch on, because there were more major sourcing issues that needed to be addressed first). But this process will take more time and energy than we have seen so far, and the best way to provide that time is to step back from the Good Article nomination process for now so that there is no need to rush to meet a deadline. Therefore, I am going to fail the GA nomination for now. The article can be re-nominated once that thorough revision process is complete. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 22:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing. But before I look at it more seriously, it would be helpful to address the following issues:
— David Eppstein ( talk) 22:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The nominator left a note on my talk page, which for convenience I copy here:
However, I think the sourcing is still deficient. Every claim in every sentence must be sourced. If two or more consecutive sentences of the same paragraph have the same source, it's only necessary to footnote the last one, but footnotes should not span more than one paragraph. As the article is now, many sentences (in all sections) and four entire paragraphs (in the nib flexibility section) are missing footnotes, and many footnotes that look like they span multiple sentences really only cover the material in the final sentence of the span. Additionally, the source in the "Limiting issues" section is an unreliable-looking web page that itself cites Wikipedia, violating WP:CIRCULAR, and the MacKinnon source in the "New patents and inventions" section also looks dubious for reliability. Again, there are many primary (patent) sources and many bare-url sources that need to be fixed. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
At this point I gave up on a detailed reading. The sourcing problems already indicated above have been papered over but are far from solved. My impression is that well over the majority of individual sentences are still badly sourced. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
There has been no additional progress in the last two weeks, and the article is still far from meeting the GA criteria. At this point, I think what the article needs is for an editor to go through the article slowly and carefully, checking that each phrase is meaningful, correct, and sourced to scholarly rather than promotional sources, and that the overall article makes sense as a whole (another issue that needs work but that the review comments above didn't really touch on, because there were more major sourcing issues that needed to be addressed first). But this process will take more time and energy than we have seen so far, and the best way to provide that time is to step back from the Good Article nomination process for now so that there is no need to rush to meet a deadline. Therefore, I am going to fail the GA nomination for now. The article can be re-nominated once that thorough revision process is complete. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)