Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Shimeru ( talk) 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm going to place this on hold for now. I don't think the article is in a passing state as it stands, but it doesn't look too far off. It's certainly grown a good deal in a short time as it is.
Shimeru ( talk) 08:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Shimeru for his excellent, fair and thorough analysis of the problems with the article. His criticisms and suggestions no doubt serve as a template for us going forward. In the next few weeks I'll try to deal with as many of the (easier) points Shimeru raises (BLP issues/neutrality). I'm afraid however that I won't be able to address the other, very important observation from Shimeru – that the lead is not fully extrapolated throughout the article and that it is too long against the synopsis. In order to solve these issues, a fuller synopsis is needed, and I would need a hard copy of the book in order to be able to write one (which at the moment I do not have). I'm coming to the UK again in July and will order one on Amazon for then. In the meantime, it looks as thought the article will fail the GA nomination, and can be submitted again perhaps in early August after all the problems above have been dealt with, unless, that is, another editor would be so kind as to have a go themselves? Anyway, it isn't a race – it seems to me that we should be aiming to get there slowly and surely, always trying to ensure quality and adhere to WP guidelines along the way. Jprw ( talk) 10:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I will be renominating it -- I am confident that the failings you drew attention to can be adequately addressed. Thanks again for your suggestions and taking the trouble to do the assessment. Best, Jprw ( talk) 09:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Shimeru ( talk) 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm going to place this on hold for now. I don't think the article is in a passing state as it stands, but it doesn't look too far off. It's certainly grown a good deal in a short time as it is.
Shimeru ( talk) 08:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Shimeru for his excellent, fair and thorough analysis of the problems with the article. His criticisms and suggestions no doubt serve as a template for us going forward. In the next few weeks I'll try to deal with as many of the (easier) points Shimeru raises (BLP issues/neutrality). I'm afraid however that I won't be able to address the other, very important observation from Shimeru – that the lead is not fully extrapolated throughout the article and that it is too long against the synopsis. In order to solve these issues, a fuller synopsis is needed, and I would need a hard copy of the book in order to be able to write one (which at the moment I do not have). I'm coming to the UK again in July and will order one on Amazon for then. In the meantime, it looks as thought the article will fail the GA nomination, and can be submitted again perhaps in early August after all the problems above have been dealt with, unless, that is, another editor would be so kind as to have a go themselves? Anyway, it isn't a race – it seems to me that we should be aiming to get there slowly and surely, always trying to ensure quality and adhere to WP guidelines along the way. Jprw ( talk) 10:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I will be renominating it -- I am confident that the failings you drew attention to can be adequately addressed. Thanks again for your suggestions and taking the trouble to do the assessment. Best, Jprw ( talk) 09:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)