GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll get on and commence the review tomorrow. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Right. Positively, a lot a work has clearly gone into the article. I enjoyed reading it and liked the choice of pictures. Gratifyingly, an attempt had been made to provide citations for all major points. I started working through the references though, and by the time I'd gone through the first 17 of them (listed below), it was clear there are major problems here at the GA level. The guidance on reliable sources isn't black and white, but of the first set of references I worked through, there was a pattern of self-published websites, often by unnamed authors; blogs; and so on. Only a few of them referred back to reliable sources (e.g. a specialist historian's website; a published academic book), etc., and then the page numbers were often wrong. I've skimmed through the remainder, and it looks like a similar pattern.
With this in mind, I'm going to fail the article this time around. My advice would be:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll get on and commence the review tomorrow. Hchc2009 ( talk) 19:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Right. Positively, a lot a work has clearly gone into the article. I enjoyed reading it and liked the choice of pictures. Gratifyingly, an attempt had been made to provide citations for all major points. I started working through the references though, and by the time I'd gone through the first 17 of them (listed below), it was clear there are major problems here at the GA level. The guidance on reliable sources isn't black and white, but of the first set of references I worked through, there was a pattern of self-published websites, often by unnamed authors; blogs; and so on. Only a few of them referred back to reliable sources (e.g. a specialist historian's website; a published academic book), etc., and then the page numbers were often wrong. I've skimmed through the remainder, and it looks like a similar pattern.
With this in mind, I'm going to fail the article this time around. My advice would be:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;