Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Starting review, and it will not take too long.
Alan16 (
talk) 03:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Result - ✗ Fail
Quick-fail criteria
It passes the quick-fail criteria just about.
However, I'll jump straight to the point on the GA criteria.
Conclusion
In articles on works of literature, the information on themes and meanings needs to be so well sources. If you take the "poem" section for example, it is full of stuff on themes etc., but it contains only one inline citation. That is not enough for 10 sentences of what therefore feels like original research. I'd also hope for more
reliable sources in the themes section - 5 seems a bit few for a decent chunk of writing. Apart from this, the article is well written with accurate spelling and grammar, but wikilinks are scarce on the ground (key words like "poem" and "theme" would be good links, as well as some of the concepts talked about in the themes section) and an infobox wouldn't go amiss. It is a good start, and a solid base to work from. It has potential.
As it seems to have been decided that I am not competent enough to review GA nominations I'm removing this review. Somebody else can go ahead and review it, but I will not review it - if only for the reason that it will seem like I have been pressurized into passing it. It would be better if an independent reviewer did it. Alan16 ( talk) 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Review carried out by Alan16 ( talk) on 9 August 2009
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Starting review, and it will not take too long.
Alan16 (
talk) 03:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Result - ✗ Fail
Quick-fail criteria
It passes the quick-fail criteria just about.
However, I'll jump straight to the point on the GA criteria.
Conclusion
In articles on works of literature, the information on themes and meanings needs to be so well sources. If you take the "poem" section for example, it is full of stuff on themes etc., but it contains only one inline citation. That is not enough for 10 sentences of what therefore feels like original research. I'd also hope for more
reliable sources in the themes section - 5 seems a bit few for a decent chunk of writing. Apart from this, the article is well written with accurate spelling and grammar, but wikilinks are scarce on the ground (key words like "poem" and "theme" would be good links, as well as some of the concepts talked about in the themes section) and an infobox wouldn't go amiss. It is a good start, and a solid base to work from. It has potential.
As it seems to have been decided that I am not competent enough to review GA nominations I'm removing this review. Somebody else can go ahead and review it, but I will not review it - if only for the reason that it will seem like I have been pressurized into passing it. It would be better if an independent reviewer did it. Alan16 ( talk) 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Review carried out by Alan16 ( talk) on 9 August 2009