| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Aaron north ( talk) 06:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an impressive article which has had a lot of work put into it. However, it also has several issues that would need to be corrected. This article really needs a thorough copy-edit and perhaps a peer review. I have corrected a few sentences, but the problems remaining are too numerous to list. There are also a lot of problems with word choice, particularly editorializing and unattributed "peacock" and "weasel" words. I did enjoy reading the article and recognize all the effort that went into it, but unfortunately this article simply is not close enough for me to hold it.
Aaron north (
talk)
01:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and
verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to
reliable sources): 
c (
OR):
- questions on citations and OR are mainly related to problems with editorializing throughout the article.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the
neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by
images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have
fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with
suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have
fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Issues
- We need a pronunciation in the lead.
- Several sentences are written awkwardly and could be improved. This article really needs a thorough copyedit. WP:COPYEDIT
- There are a lot of problematic words and phrases throughout the article ("word choice" under GA requirement 1b). They should be replaced with neutral language and/or contained in an attributed quote. These words and phrases also cast the article's NPOV in doubt. MOS:OPED WP:PEACOCK WP:WEASEL
Seriously though Aaron, it could have been easily improved within the week, especially if two or three of us were copying editing. I strongly suggest you reopen this nomination as you haven't given us a chance to address what you think is problematic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Aaron north ( talk) 06:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an impressive article which has had a lot of work put into it. However, it also has several issues that would need to be corrected. This article really needs a thorough copy-edit and perhaps a peer review. I have corrected a few sentences, but the problems remaining are too numerous to list. There are also a lot of problems with word choice, particularly editorializing and unattributed "peacock" and "weasel" words. I did enjoy reading the article and recognize all the effort that went into it, but unfortunately this article simply is not close enough for me to hold it.
Aaron north (
talk)
01:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and
verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to
reliable sources): c (
OR):
- questions on citations and OR are mainly related to problems with editorializing throughout the article.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the
neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by
images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have
fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with
suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have
fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Issues
- We need a pronunciation in the lead.
- Several sentences are written awkwardly and could be improved. This article really needs a thorough copyedit. WP:COPYEDIT
- There are a lot of problematic words and phrases throughout the article ("word choice" under GA requirement 1b). They should be replaced with neutral language and/or contained in an attributed quote. These words and phrases also cast the article's NPOV in doubt. MOS:OPED WP:PEACOCK WP:WEASEL
Seriously though Aaron, it could have been easily improved within the week, especially if two or three of us were copying editing. I strongly suggest you reopen this nomination as you haven't given us a chance to address what you think is problematic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)