Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
This article appears to be well-referenced, well-illustrated, and fairly comprehensive in scope. I took an instant dislike to the prose in the WP:lead and there are some one-sentence and two-sentence paragraphs; but article as a whole is probably GA-material.
I will continue the review, section by section, but leaving the WP:lead (with its instantly dislikeable prose) until last. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
At present I'm only concentrating on "problems"; so if I don't mention a section that probably means that I regard it as compliant with WP:WIAGA. I'm sorry if this comes across as "negative"; but the good points only do get mentioned at the end of this review.
...to be continued.
Pyrotec (
talk)
22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Various changes made. I don't intend to combine the paragraphs in "twelfth century"; it's better to start a new paragraph when addressing a new topic, and I disapprove of this tendency to stitch paragraphs on unrelated topics together in order to make longer paragraphs, which is an artifact of Wikipedian GA criteria, not an aspect of good writing style. (
Fowler's has nothing to say on paragraph length at all.
Strunk merely says a paragraph should be more than one sentence, except in speech.) Since the sources I have available do not supply any more detail on these topics, expanding the paragraphs would just be an exercise in padding or waffle.—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont
11:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Quite a comprehensive summary of the History of Hertfordshire & well referenced.
This is a good article and I'm awarding GA-status. It has taken some time to review it and I've made a few critical comments above, however considering the length of the article these were not all the significant. Congratulations on the quality of the article. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
This article appears to be well-referenced, well-illustrated, and fairly comprehensive in scope. I took an instant dislike to the prose in the WP:lead and there are some one-sentence and two-sentence paragraphs; but article as a whole is probably GA-material.
I will continue the review, section by section, but leaving the WP:lead (with its instantly dislikeable prose) until last. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
At present I'm only concentrating on "problems"; so if I don't mention a section that probably means that I regard it as compliant with WP:WIAGA. I'm sorry if this comes across as "negative"; but the good points only do get mentioned at the end of this review.
...to be continued.
Pyrotec (
talk)
22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Various changes made. I don't intend to combine the paragraphs in "twelfth century"; it's better to start a new paragraph when addressing a new topic, and I disapprove of this tendency to stitch paragraphs on unrelated topics together in order to make longer paragraphs, which is an artifact of Wikipedian GA criteria, not an aspect of good writing style. (
Fowler's has nothing to say on paragraph length at all.
Strunk merely says a paragraph should be more than one sentence, except in speech.) Since the sources I have available do not supply any more detail on these topics, expanding the paragraphs would just be an exercise in padding or waffle.—
S Marshall
Talk/
Cont
11:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Quite a comprehensive summary of the History of Hertfordshire & well referenced.
This is a good article and I'm awarding GA-status. It has taken some time to review it and I've made a few critical comments above, however considering the length of the article these were not all the significant. Congratulations on the quality of the article. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)