GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Calvin999 ( talk · contribs) 20:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved user: With so many unreferenced sections, the article in its current state arguably meets the quick-fail criteria.
sovereign°
sentinel
(contribs)
09:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sovereign Sentinel is right. I can't conduct a proper review and do checking of sources when so many sections are unsupported. Furthermore, a lot of references are either missing dates, access dates or works, and are using different date formatting. Ref 3 for example has no title and a url showing. Ref 60 has capitals in the title, which violates WP:SHOUT. Structurally, I don't think you need so many sub-sections with such a small and short paragraphs. I'm sorry but until you source all of the sections then this can't be reviewed seriously. — Calvin999 18:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments from uninvolved user: A remarkable percentage of the sources are Lego itself. There do exist aspects of a company for which you can cite the company; but a company is hardly an independent source on itself. A quick look showed that among the newly added sources is this one within the self-publishing part of Project Gutenberg. A sizable paragraph is sourced in its entirety to
but as of a few seconds ago, none of the material in that paragraph appeared on that web page. (Possibly it can be found here in the Wayback Machine.) Checklinks shows that more than a dozen links require updating, at least. And finding these problems took me less than one minute. (NB I don't want to criticize the work that has recently been done on the article: it's now better than it recently was, and time and effort went into this. But the improvement doesn't mean that the result is "Good".) -- Hoary ( talk) 09:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Calvin999 ( talk · contribs) 20:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved user: With so many unreferenced sections, the article in its current state arguably meets the quick-fail criteria.
sovereign°
sentinel
(contribs)
09:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sovereign Sentinel is right. I can't conduct a proper review and do checking of sources when so many sections are unsupported. Furthermore, a lot of references are either missing dates, access dates or works, and are using different date formatting. Ref 3 for example has no title and a url showing. Ref 60 has capitals in the title, which violates WP:SHOUT. Structurally, I don't think you need so many sub-sections with such a small and short paragraphs. I'm sorry but until you source all of the sections then this can't be reviewed seriously. — Calvin999 18:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments from uninvolved user: A remarkable percentage of the sources are Lego itself. There do exist aspects of a company for which you can cite the company; but a company is hardly an independent source on itself. A quick look showed that among the newly added sources is this one within the self-publishing part of Project Gutenberg. A sizable paragraph is sourced in its entirety to
but as of a few seconds ago, none of the material in that paragraph appeared on that web page. (Possibly it can be found here in the Wayback Machine.) Checklinks shows that more than a dozen links require updating, at least. And finding these problems took me less than one minute. (NB I don't want to criticize the work that has recently been done on the article: it's now better than it recently was, and time and effort went into this. But the improvement doesn't mean that the result is "Good".) -- Hoary ( talk) 09:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)