Talk:Armin Luistro/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 18:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Moray An Par

I'm currently in the process of reviewing... – Quadell ^(talk) 20:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is a somewhat stilted. In the lede, many sentences in a row begin "He" and a past-tense verb, with little variety in sentence structure. In the body, there are many awkward phrasings: "He was conferred a doctor's degree" rather than "He received a doctorate"; "on May 2005" rather than "in May of 2005"; "was the reason why" rather than "was the reason that"; etc. I'd suggest submitting the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors before nominating for GA again.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The infobox and categories are fine. The lede is a good summary of all sections of the article, and contains no unique information. This is exactly what a lede should do. But at 6 paragrahs, it is too long for an article of this length. Detailed information (such a financial comparisons, or when he professed his final vows) don't need to be in the lede. Also, the lede does not need to contain footnoted references, since the same material is referenced when it is presented in the body.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are formatted fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sourcing is excellent. Claims are stated when appropriate, and in my checks, all claims are backed up by the sources. I found no plagiarism.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I believe so.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Only the lede is too detailed, as discussed above.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Most of it is admirably neutral. But the K+12 section devotes a lot of space to a lengthy quote by an advocacy group. Either the quote should be reduced to a single sentence, or it should be cut entirely.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	After thoroughly investigating the image, I'm satisfied that it's correctly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It would be better with more images, but the images are fine.
	7. Overall assessment.	The biggest problem is the quality of the English prose. If you submit the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and fix the few issues above, I think it should be ready for GA status soon.