GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 15:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. I'll do a close readthrough over the next few days, noting initial issues as I go; then we'll turn to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Khazar2 ( talk) 16:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is quite good on the whole: readable, interesting, and comprehensive. My main concern is that the phrasing in the sources I've checked hews quite close to the original. I don't believe M'Clure is an issue, as his work is presumably out of copyright, and he's generally attributed in-text anyway; but the phrases like "began to make adverse comments about Wilson" are unnecessarily close to those in copyrighted sources. The wording in these sections should be significantly reworked. In the above phrase, for example, you might simply say "began to criticize Wilson", rather than using Bremer's precise language. This is always a bit of a judgement call, but it seems to me that this article relies a little too heavily on the wording and phrases of the originals. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:15, 1 January 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. | Article is excellently written. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
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. | |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Article is impressively thorough. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
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. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 15:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. I'll do a close readthrough over the next few days, noting initial issues as I go; then we'll turn to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Khazar2 ( talk) 16:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is quite good on the whole: readable, interesting, and comprehensive. My main concern is that the phrasing in the sources I've checked hews quite close to the original. I don't believe M'Clure is an issue, as his work is presumably out of copyright, and he's generally attributed in-text anyway; but the phrases like "began to make adverse comments about Wilson" are unnecessarily close to those in copyrighted sources. The wording in these sections should be significantly reworked. In the above phrase, for example, you might simply say "began to criticize Wilson", rather than using Bremer's precise language. This is always a bit of a judgement call, but it seems to me that this article relies a little too heavily on the wording and phrases of the originals. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:15, 1 January 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. | Article is excellently written. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
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. | |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Article is impressively thorough. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
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. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |