Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I read through this article and did some copyediting. I have a short list of concerns:
Other that these issues, the article is very well-written. I will place the nomination on hold for a week to allow these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I have looked over the citations in question. A few things I want to note about them: Because they are print sources, a reader would have to be in possession of the original source to verify them — the ability to verify them does not depend on the page number, although it would be helpful. Quotations have been provided from each of the print citations. An assumption of good faith may also come into play here, as a Wikipedia administrator is unlikely, although certainly not unable, to provide false information. Finally, the information cited is not contentious or defamatory. If Malcolmxl5 returns and is able to provide page numbers, that's great. As it stands now, though, I don't believe that their absent detracts substantially from the verifiability of this article.
With that said, I believe that the article meets the six GA criteria, so I am promoting it. Congratulations, and thanks for your hard work.
If you are able to review an article in return to help reduce the backlog at WP:GAN, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I read through this article and did some copyediting. I have a short list of concerns:
Other that these issues, the article is very well-written. I will place the nomination on hold for a week to allow these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I have looked over the citations in question. A few things I want to note about them: Because they are print sources, a reader would have to be in possession of the original source to verify them — the ability to verify them does not depend on the page number, although it would be helpful. Quotations have been provided from each of the print citations. An assumption of good faith may also come into play here, as a Wikipedia administrator is unlikely, although certainly not unable, to provide false information. Finally, the information cited is not contentious or defamatory. If Malcolmxl5 returns and is able to provide page numbers, that's great. As it stands now, though, I don't believe that their absent detracts substantially from the verifiability of this article.
With that said, I believe that the article meets the six GA criteria, so I am promoting it. Congratulations, and thanks for your hard work.
If you are able to review an article in return to help reduce the backlog at WP:GAN, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)