GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 14:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of good information, and I want to open by thanking everybody for their work on this so far. The article draws on a range of sources, demonstrates no serious neutrality problems at first glance, and appears to cover all "main aspects" of Benedict's career.
I think it does have some areas in which it needs to improve before being listed as a Good Article. I've listed specific concerns below, but to summarize, the article appears to need some additional citation, to better summarize its contents in the lead, to delete or merge the redundant "overview" section, to update the most recent events (Benedict is presumably no longer awaiting the end of the papal conclave to choose his successor, unless nobody told him yet), and to address various clean-up tags on the article. The article also appears even on a fast read to need some minor copyediting (I've done a bit of this as I went). On a more general note, while the article has many excellent sections, it still doesn't read in other places as a very coherent whole--lots of one-sentence paragraphs and lists of meetings, statements, and events.
In short, this nomination seems to me a bit premature. I'd suggest taking a leisurely readthrough of the article, doublecheck that everything of significance is cited (particularly interpretation or quotations), that the language is up-to-date, and that the clean-up tags have been addressed. Since these concerns seem to me fairly extensive, I'm not listing the article for now, but I hope the nominator and other editors will continue work on this important topic. I've added some more specific comments below. I apologize in advance that these are so ridiculously out of order--I was bouncing back and forth in the article to double-check different aspects, and noting issues as I went.
Hope this helps, and again, thanks for everyone's efforts on this top-importance article! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 16:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Done -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 04:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Done -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 04:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 14:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of good information, and I want to open by thanking everybody for their work on this so far. The article draws on a range of sources, demonstrates no serious neutrality problems at first glance, and appears to cover all "main aspects" of Benedict's career.
I think it does have some areas in which it needs to improve before being listed as a Good Article. I've listed specific concerns below, but to summarize, the article appears to need some additional citation, to better summarize its contents in the lead, to delete or merge the redundant "overview" section, to update the most recent events (Benedict is presumably no longer awaiting the end of the papal conclave to choose his successor, unless nobody told him yet), and to address various clean-up tags on the article. The article also appears even on a fast read to need some minor copyediting (I've done a bit of this as I went). On a more general note, while the article has many excellent sections, it still doesn't read in other places as a very coherent whole--lots of one-sentence paragraphs and lists of meetings, statements, and events.
In short, this nomination seems to me a bit premature. I'd suggest taking a leisurely readthrough of the article, doublecheck that everything of significance is cited (particularly interpretation or quotations), that the language is up-to-date, and that the clean-up tags have been addressed. Since these concerns seem to me fairly extensive, I'm not listing the article for now, but I hope the nominator and other editors will continue work on this important topic. I've added some more specific comments below. I apologize in advance that these are so ridiculously out of order--I was bouncing back and forth in the article to double-check different aspects, and noting issues as I went.
Hope this helps, and again, thanks for everyone's efforts on this top-importance article! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 16:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Done -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 04:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Done -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 04:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)