Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I Will be beginning the reviee rather slowly as I have a lot of work presently and was not planning to review any articles.
Starting out I will say that at a quick glance I share the ip-reviewers concerns about sourcing, but I also understand Bamse's statement that the article is essentially a summary article of the many detailed lists that are all sourced. The main problem of this review I predict will be finding a balance between giving adequate sourcing for all "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", and respecting that this article is a summary with detailed sources found in the subarticles. I must say up front that I don't think the article will be able to pass without adding further sourcing, but that it is a question of how thorough this sourcing will have to be. I would encourage bamse to look at the way in which the summary sections in an article like World War II is sourced - it has generally at least one reference to a general work on the topic for each summary subsection. I think that ideally the same should be done with this article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1. Well written.
2.Factually accurate.
3.Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral.
5. Stable.
6. Illustrated.
I am very well pleased with the implemented changes. It improves readability and text flow that the large table is now gone - it also calms my doubts about MOS compliance. The sourcing is also sufficient now although it does rely on few sources that are used many times each. My two remaining concerns are with the graphical layout: the combination of many short sections with many images cause stacking problems when the article is read on a wide screen. This could preferably be handled by making the shortest sections longer (adding more detail), but also by removing some images (maybe not every category of treasure needs and image?), or combining some categories into larger sections e.g. "Shrines and temples", "Castles and residences" which would allow the photos in that section to be combined using the [ option]. Also the lead should have a well chosen image. I think that after a few improvements along those lines the article will be ready for GA status. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Having reread the article one last time I find that alll my queries have been satisfactorily dealt with and I see no reason that this article should not now be one of wikipedias Good Artcles. Congratulations. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I Will be beginning the reviee rather slowly as I have a lot of work presently and was not planning to review any articles.
Starting out I will say that at a quick glance I share the ip-reviewers concerns about sourcing, but I also understand Bamse's statement that the article is essentially a summary article of the many detailed lists that are all sourced. The main problem of this review I predict will be finding a balance between giving adequate sourcing for all "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", and respecting that this article is a summary with detailed sources found in the subarticles. I must say up front that I don't think the article will be able to pass without adding further sourcing, but that it is a question of how thorough this sourcing will have to be. I would encourage bamse to look at the way in which the summary sections in an article like World War II is sourced - it has generally at least one reference to a general work on the topic for each summary subsection. I think that ideally the same should be done with this article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1. Well written.
2.Factually accurate.
3.Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral.
5. Stable.
6. Illustrated.
I am very well pleased with the implemented changes. It improves readability and text flow that the large table is now gone - it also calms my doubts about MOS compliance. The sourcing is also sufficient now although it does rely on few sources that are used many times each. My two remaining concerns are with the graphical layout: the combination of many short sections with many images cause stacking problems when the article is read on a wide screen. This could preferably be handled by making the shortest sections longer (adding more detail), but also by removing some images (maybe not every category of treasure needs and image?), or combining some categories into larger sections e.g. "Shrines and temples", "Castles and residences" which would allow the photos in that section to be combined using the [ option]. Also the lead should have a well chosen image. I think that after a few improvements along those lines the article will be ready for GA status. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Having reread the article one last time I find that alll my queries have been satisfactorily dealt with and I see no reason that this article should not now be one of wikipedias Good Artcles. Congratulations. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)