GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Figfires ( talk · contribs) 16:30, 16 August 2018 (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 prose is not clear and concise. The prose is extremely long and overly detailed. While I did enjoy learning a great deal about this topic, the amount of detail included is simply too great. The level of detail does not fall under the encyclopedic summary standards. Additionally, I saw numerous spelling and grammatical issues within the article including misspelled words, punctuation mistakes, and incorrect verb tense. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The article uses the word "says" a multitude of times instead of other alternatives that are much better suited for an encyclopedia article. | |
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. | The article is verifiable and a list of references/bibliography has been presented at the bottom of the page. | |
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). | All references appear to be from reliable sources | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Despite the article being long and overly detailed, it did not appear that original research took place. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No plagiarism or copyright violations from what I saw. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The main aspects of the topic are addressed throughout the article in their respective sections. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article goes into unnecessary detail in almost every section and contains many firsthand accounts/quotes that are not required. The article does not follow summary style. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article is not neutral and appears to be biased against the crew of the ship for most of the article. With the adjectives used in this article it creates tone issues. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is pretty stable, although there is not much of a history. The article itself is a month old. | |
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. | All images have the proper licensing, copyright, and/or free use rationales listed on their respective pages. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All images are relevant to the article and have excellent captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. | From what I have seen, the article needs to be copyedited as there are numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. Also, the article is overly detailed for the average wikipedia goer and does not follow summary style. Finally, the article has some unbalanced tone towards the crew of the ship. The tone should fix itself for the most part once the article follows summary style. The detail level issue is just my opinion. You may renominate at any time, but I would definitely recommend copy editing for spelling/grammar before you do so. |
After reading through almost the entire article, I have decided to fail this due to multiple issues that warrant cleanup templates.
The article is written in an unbalanced manner which doesn't follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It isn't to the level of Essay-like, but it certainly is biased in tone. Figfires Send me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I have given up on trying to point out all the issues as they are numerous and the article would have to undergo a major revision anyways in order for it to be acceptable. The article in its current state is overly detailed and does not fit the encyclopedic summary style. There should only be a moderate level of detail at most in a section. If you want extreme detail, a child article should be formed and it could discuss the topic in a much greater detail than in the parent article. Figfires Send me a message! 02:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
In the Arrival and marooning in Newfoundland section, Quebec is misspelled. Figfires Send me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Figfires ( talk · contribs) 16:30, 16 August 2018 (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 prose is not clear and concise. The prose is extremely long and overly detailed. While I did enjoy learning a great deal about this topic, the amount of detail included is simply too great. The level of detail does not fall under the encyclopedic summary standards. Additionally, I saw numerous spelling and grammatical issues within the article including misspelled words, punctuation mistakes, and incorrect verb tense. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The article uses the word "says" a multitude of times instead of other alternatives that are much better suited for an encyclopedia article. | |
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. | The article is verifiable and a list of references/bibliography has been presented at the bottom of the page. | |
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). | All references appear to be from reliable sources | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Despite the article being long and overly detailed, it did not appear that original research took place. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No plagiarism or copyright violations from what I saw. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The main aspects of the topic are addressed throughout the article in their respective sections. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article goes into unnecessary detail in almost every section and contains many firsthand accounts/quotes that are not required. The article does not follow summary style. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article is not neutral and appears to be biased against the crew of the ship for most of the article. With the adjectives used in this article it creates tone issues. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is pretty stable, although there is not much of a history. The article itself is a month old. | |
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. | All images have the proper licensing, copyright, and/or free use rationales listed on their respective pages. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All images are relevant to the article and have excellent captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. | From what I have seen, the article needs to be copyedited as there are numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. Also, the article is overly detailed for the average wikipedia goer and does not follow summary style. Finally, the article has some unbalanced tone towards the crew of the ship. The tone should fix itself for the most part once the article follows summary style. The detail level issue is just my opinion. You may renominate at any time, but I would definitely recommend copy editing for spelling/grammar before you do so. |
After reading through almost the entire article, I have decided to fail this due to multiple issues that warrant cleanup templates.
The article is written in an unbalanced manner which doesn't follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It isn't to the level of Essay-like, but it certainly is biased in tone. Figfires Send me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I have given up on trying to point out all the issues as they are numerous and the article would have to undergo a major revision anyways in order for it to be acceptable. The article in its current state is overly detailed and does not fit the encyclopedic summary style. There should only be a moderate level of detail at most in a section. If you want extreme detail, a child article should be formed and it could discuss the topic in a much greater detail than in the parent article. Figfires Send me a message! 02:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
In the Arrival and marooning in Newfoundland section, Quebec is misspelled. Figfires Send me a message! 01:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)