![]() | Penumbra (law) has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 16, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
![]() | A fact from Penumbra (law) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 September 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Would this article benefit from addition of an illustdration such as
This is [[File:Area light source soft shadow.png|thumb|Area light source soft shadow]] PraeceptorIP ( talk) 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "political-process theory, or even fundamental rights analysis" occurs in a quote. Should that become:
" political-process theory, or even fundamental rights analysis"?
"[[political-process theory]], or even [[fundamental rights analysis]]"?
And then very short articles for the [[ ]]-ed terms explaining what that means? PraeceptorIP ( talk) 19:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
You could do a disambiguation and create Political Process Theory (legal) PraeceptorIP ( talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mr rnddude ( talk · contribs) 15:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I will be taking on the review for this article, expect a full review by tomorrow.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
15:39, 3 August 2016 (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. | The below issues that I have identified have been rectified;
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | My comments have been addressed satisfactorily on this point.
|
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). | The article uses reliable sources throughout, as such I have no concerns about this criterion. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | False flag was reported by Earwig's copyvio detector, it was caused by the extensive use of quotations in the article.
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Having read the article and looked at a couple of its sources I am fairly confident that this article covers the topic well. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article stays on topic without straying and without unnecessary detail. |
![]() |
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. | The article has been in a stable state for months, there was a discussion on the talk page about a linking change but that has been stable for nearly a year. |
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. | The third image is a bit of a weird one in terms of licensing but "Publication and other forms of distribution: Permitted" as per the library of congress. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The images have appropriate captions that help to explain the content. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Passes GA |
I will be using the above table for my review. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Mr rnddude: first and foremost, I want to thank you for agreeing to review this article. It is an exceedingly complex and arcane subject; I admire your willingness to dive into the heart of things with this review. I have already begun to work on your suggested modifications, but I want to offer a few preliminary responses:
"If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it").
I'll be sure to ping you once these changes are made. In the meantime, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 08:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Mr rnddude: I apologize for not finishing this earlier, but I have gone through the article and I have implemented the changes requested in your GA review. Statements should now be properly attributed to the authors that made those statements, and most of the quoted material has been paraphrased. Let me know if there is anything else that you think needs to be done. I also moved around some text to help improve the flow/readability of the article. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 10:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"substantial basis"the assertion that scholars characterize the term in that manner (per WP:WEASEL). Nevertheless, I have re-phrased that sentence to resolve any potential issues. Thanks again for taking the time to do this review -- I very much appreciate your eye for detail and the thoroughness of your analysis. Wikipedia needs more GA reviewers like you, and I hope that you continue your good work! All the best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 17:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Penumbra (law) has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 16, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
![]() | A fact from Penumbra (law) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 September 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Would this article benefit from addition of an illustdration such as
This is [[File:Area light source soft shadow.png|thumb|Area light source soft shadow]] PraeceptorIP ( talk) 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "political-process theory, or even fundamental rights analysis" occurs in a quote. Should that become:
" political-process theory, or even fundamental rights analysis"?
"[[political-process theory]], or even [[fundamental rights analysis]]"?
And then very short articles for the [[ ]]-ed terms explaining what that means? PraeceptorIP ( talk) 19:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
You could do a disambiguation and create Political Process Theory (legal) PraeceptorIP ( talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mr rnddude ( talk · contribs) 15:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I will be taking on the review for this article, expect a full review by tomorrow.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
15:39, 3 August 2016 (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. | The below issues that I have identified have been rectified;
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | My comments have been addressed satisfactorily on this point.
|
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). | The article uses reliable sources throughout, as such I have no concerns about this criterion. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | False flag was reported by Earwig's copyvio detector, it was caused by the extensive use of quotations in the article.
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Having read the article and looked at a couple of its sources I am fairly confident that this article covers the topic well. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article stays on topic without straying and without unnecessary detail. |
![]() |
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. | The article has been in a stable state for months, there was a discussion on the talk page about a linking change but that has been stable for nearly a year. |
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. | The third image is a bit of a weird one in terms of licensing but "Publication and other forms of distribution: Permitted" as per the library of congress. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The images have appropriate captions that help to explain the content. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Passes GA |
I will be using the above table for my review. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Mr rnddude: first and foremost, I want to thank you for agreeing to review this article. It is an exceedingly complex and arcane subject; I admire your willingness to dive into the heart of things with this review. I have already begun to work on your suggested modifications, but I want to offer a few preliminary responses:
"If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it").
I'll be sure to ping you once these changes are made. In the meantime, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 08:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Mr rnddude: I apologize for not finishing this earlier, but I have gone through the article and I have implemented the changes requested in your GA review. Statements should now be properly attributed to the authors that made those statements, and most of the quoted material has been paraphrased. Let me know if there is anything else that you think needs to be done. I also moved around some text to help improve the flow/readability of the article. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 10:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"substantial basis"the assertion that scholars characterize the term in that manner (per WP:WEASEL). Nevertheless, I have re-phrased that sentence to resolve any potential issues. Thanks again for taking the time to do this review -- I very much appreciate your eye for detail and the thoroughness of your analysis. Wikipedia needs more GA reviewers like you, and I hope that you continue your good work! All the best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 17:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)