GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Montanabw ( talk · contribs) 03:40, 24 June 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. | See comments below |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See comments below. DONE |
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. | See comments below. DONE |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Will run a final check before final review; preliminary assessment looks OK. Earwig tool is clear, AGF on offline sources and those I cannot access. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
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. |
File:Sabrina Bicknell aged 75.png |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Suggest one caption be tweaked and the image moved, but not a huge issue |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Fascinating article. I'll focus on the GA criteria, but with a nod that you hope to go to FAC, so I'll comment where I see issues.
done
|
---|
|
done
|
---|
This section looks pretty good, though again a little smoothing and copyediting for flow would help. My only issues are the several sentences all sourced to four sources at the end of the paragraph, and the other area where three sources are piled at the end of a multi-sentence sequence. I'd prefer to see these attached a bit more closely to what they cite. This method of citation is marginally acceptable at GA level, but I'm not fond of it, and I suspect it will be trouble at FAC.
|
done
|
---|
|
done
|
---|
|
More to come, I think this is a fascinating tale well worth telling and your research is excellent!
Montanabw
(talk)
04:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in re-reviewing. Much, much improved! You might now be overusing the word "whilst" a bit (do a word search, you'll see it) and may want to do a little more light copyediting (there are a couple places where commas and/or apostrophes would be useful) but vastly improved. I am also OK with saying Emile sometimes after an initial mention with the full title, as it's a well-known work and Emile, or On Education might now be overdone, particularly when used twice in a paragraph. I'm hatting everything that is done to my satisfaction and adding comments to anything I see that still needs some fixes. What's not hatted, re-read for additional comments. Looking good, almost there! Montanabw (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Montanabw ( talk · contribs) 03:40, 24 June 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. | See comments below |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See comments below. DONE |
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. | See comments below. DONE |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Will run a final check before final review; preliminary assessment looks OK. Earwig tool is clear, AGF on offline sources and those I cannot access. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
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. |
File:Sabrina Bicknell aged 75.png |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Suggest one caption be tweaked and the image moved, but not a huge issue |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Fascinating article. I'll focus on the GA criteria, but with a nod that you hope to go to FAC, so I'll comment where I see issues.
done
|
---|
|
done
|
---|
This section looks pretty good, though again a little smoothing and copyediting for flow would help. My only issues are the several sentences all sourced to four sources at the end of the paragraph, and the other area where three sources are piled at the end of a multi-sentence sequence. I'd prefer to see these attached a bit more closely to what they cite. This method of citation is marginally acceptable at GA level, but I'm not fond of it, and I suspect it will be trouble at FAC.
|
done
|
---|
|
done
|
---|
|
More to come, I think this is a fascinating tale well worth telling and your research is excellent!
Montanabw
(talk)
04:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in re-reviewing. Much, much improved! You might now be overusing the word "whilst" a bit (do a word search, you'll see it) and may want to do a little more light copyediting (there are a couple places where commas and/or apostrophes would be useful) but vastly improved. I am also OK with saying Emile sometimes after an initial mention with the full title, as it's a well-known work and Emile, or On Education might now be overdone, particularly when used twice in a paragraph. I'm hatting everything that is done to my satisfaction and adding comments to anything I see that still needs some fixes. What's not hatted, re-read for additional comments. Looking good, almost there! Montanabw (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)