Talk:Alma Mahler/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 14:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through. Comments will follow a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 14:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

There is some good stuff in this article, and I have enjoyed reading it, but it needs a lot of work before it meets GA standards.

First, there is the question of which language it is supposed to be in. At present the text switches between English and American spelling. Either is fine, but it must be consistent. (The convention is to stick with whichever spelling was first used in the various revisions of the article or else to check that other editors are all right about changing, if changing is what seems wanted. Looking at the edit history of this article I don't envisage any strong views being voiced either way.)

Secondly, the referencing is inadequate. References must be verifiable, and many of these are not. Take for example Refs 1 a-i which at various points refer to no page at all or to page ranges of up to 74 pages. How is anyone to verify that? Similar objections apply to Refs 2 a-i. Refs 3 a-b lead to a dead link. Refs 4 a-b point to a site that I remain to be convinced meets the conditions to qualify as a reliable source. Ref 5 gives the author's surname as given name and vice versa, spells the given name wrongly, and spells the subject’s name wrongly. Ref 7 refers to the same website as ref 4, but is formatted quite differently. Ref 10 supposedly supports mention of the Sobol play but in fact refers to the Russell film. The link at Ref 12 doesn't open. Ref 16 is a third incompatibly formatted link to the play site. Refs 20 and 21 are not references but uncited statements. No sources are cited in the Works section.

The ISBNs need attention. They should be properly hyphenated, and in 13-digit form. (A helpful tool is available here: https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter.) There is no ISBN given for the book cited at refs 2 a-i (it is 978-1-55553-789-0).

I am putting the review on formal hold for a week to give the nominator time to address these points. If that is done satisfactorily we can move on to the prose, which needs some work, but we can return to that in due course. – Tim riley talk 15:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, I will correct the references and let you know when I finish. Thank you for reviewing this article. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note some improvements, but the above points are far from completely dealt with. I'll close the review in a day or two, one way or the other. Tim riley talk 12:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, I have reworked references and deleted unreliable sources. I also used the Wikipedia:ISBN page to correct the ISBN numbers. If this looks fine to you, let's move on to the prose. Thanks!Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading, I see a few points where the prose could be improved, but the GA prose standard is "clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar correct", which this article meets, in my view. So that now the references are sorted out, I think we can proceed to promotion. Tim riley talk 12:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: