GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: EEng ( talk · contribs) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Final evaluation: Passed as GA. (I still have to do other formalities elsewhere -- give me an hour or two.) EEng ( talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I did some light copyediting of this article about two years ago -- mostly removed some pop culture trivia -- anyway the article's been almost completely rewritten and expanded recently. I believe this doesn't disqualify me from doing the review. If I hear no objections in a day or two I'll get started. EEng ( talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Let me say first that I have every expectation the article will pass easily, so I'm starting with what I suspect will be the few problem areas. I'm unconvinced of the PD status of the following two inages. Alex, can you set me straight in my thinking, or get advice at an appropriate noticeboard?
Nothing's happening there. I think we're out of luck. I don't see any choice but for you to mark the image for deletion at Commons. Sorry. EEng ( talk) 13:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
There will probably be lots of little changes to the article during this process, and there's something I like to do to prepared for that, which is to add a linebreak between each sentence. This doesn't change the rendered page as the reader sees it, but it makes diffs much, much smaller and easier to understand. I'm bringing this up here because it drives some people crazy at first, but you get used to it. I'll demonstrate in the article -- feel free to object and revert if it really bugs you. EEng ( talk) 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Except as noted (and so far none are noted) I don't see these as a bar to GA if tagged as suggested. Intersperse your thoughts.
2. If someone looks it up in The Times and sees the material there, then the cite can be changed to The Times. In the meantime we can only cite where we saw it; the better source needed acts a reminder. One good approach is to cite "Demoskoff (www.blah.com), better source needed citing The Times, 18 January 1901".
3. Every kind of source has its reliability strengths and weaknesses, but I think we're agreed for now that the BBC doc is good enough for our purposes here. (I only suggested added better source needed because you seemed to have some slight reservation about it.)
Let me say it sure is a pleasure working with someone who doesn't take umbrage at everything. My copyedits haven't upset you? Not even a teensy bit? EEng ( talk) 12:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@
EEng: I've solved the issues, hopefully. I've also changed the image. As for the scorecard, why are the reliability of the sources and neutrality of the article still being reviewed?
Alex (
talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@
EEng: I'd really appreciate it if you stopped editing the page over and over again, virtually changing the content completely and adding citation needed templates to text you've written. If there are issues, please bring them up here. Thanks,
Alex (
talk) 21:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
We can talk about most of this after GA is done (and we're almost done -- I don't think I've said right out that I was thrilled to see your new version of the article -- great improvement over what was there before).
My remaining concern for GA is still the two statements, (1) "Much of the existing information ... is based on hearsay and rumor" and (2) "In reality ... treatment was usual for the time." Don't misunderstand me -- I have no doubt that (1) is true, and would be surprised if (2) isn't also true too. But both these statements are essentially taking sides with certain sources over other sources, and even that's OK if the sources we "endorse" are clearly authoritative compared to the others. So let's take these two statements one at a time:
@ EEng: Sorry for replying, but I'm having a busy week. I'll add the quote during the weekend. Cheers, Alex ( talk) 09:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: EEng ( talk · contribs) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Final evaluation: Passed as GA. (I still have to do other formalities elsewhere -- give me an hour or two.) EEng ( talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I did some light copyediting of this article about two years ago -- mostly removed some pop culture trivia -- anyway the article's been almost completely rewritten and expanded recently. I believe this doesn't disqualify me from doing the review. If I hear no objections in a day or two I'll get started. EEng ( talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Let me say first that I have every expectation the article will pass easily, so I'm starting with what I suspect will be the few problem areas. I'm unconvinced of the PD status of the following two inages. Alex, can you set me straight in my thinking, or get advice at an appropriate noticeboard?
Nothing's happening there. I think we're out of luck. I don't see any choice but for you to mark the image for deletion at Commons. Sorry. EEng ( talk) 13:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
There will probably be lots of little changes to the article during this process, and there's something I like to do to prepared for that, which is to add a linebreak between each sentence. This doesn't change the rendered page as the reader sees it, but it makes diffs much, much smaller and easier to understand. I'm bringing this up here because it drives some people crazy at first, but you get used to it. I'll demonstrate in the article -- feel free to object and revert if it really bugs you. EEng ( talk) 15:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Except as noted (and so far none are noted) I don't see these as a bar to GA if tagged as suggested. Intersperse your thoughts.
2. If someone looks it up in The Times and sees the material there, then the cite can be changed to The Times. In the meantime we can only cite where we saw it; the better source needed acts a reminder. One good approach is to cite "Demoskoff (www.blah.com), better source needed citing The Times, 18 January 1901".
3. Every kind of source has its reliability strengths and weaknesses, but I think we're agreed for now that the BBC doc is good enough for our purposes here. (I only suggested added better source needed because you seemed to have some slight reservation about it.)
Let me say it sure is a pleasure working with someone who doesn't take umbrage at everything. My copyedits haven't upset you? Not even a teensy bit? EEng ( talk) 12:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@
EEng: I've solved the issues, hopefully. I've also changed the image. As for the scorecard, why are the reliability of the sources and neutrality of the article still being reviewed?
Alex (
talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
@
EEng: I'd really appreciate it if you stopped editing the page over and over again, virtually changing the content completely and adding citation needed templates to text you've written. If there are issues, please bring them up here. Thanks,
Alex (
talk) 21:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
We can talk about most of this after GA is done (and we're almost done -- I don't think I've said right out that I was thrilled to see your new version of the article -- great improvement over what was there before).
My remaining concern for GA is still the two statements, (1) "Much of the existing information ... is based on hearsay and rumor" and (2) "In reality ... treatment was usual for the time." Don't misunderstand me -- I have no doubt that (1) is true, and would be surprised if (2) isn't also true too. But both these statements are essentially taking sides with certain sources over other sources, and even that's OK if the sources we "endorse" are clearly authoritative compared to the others. So let's take these two statements one at a time:
@ EEng: Sorry for replying, but I'm having a busy week. I'll add the quote during the weekend. Cheers, Alex ( talk) 09:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)