Talk:Brisingr/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I will explain why below

   B. MoS compliance:

   Please check for WP:ALLCAPS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Shurtugal.com is really just a fan site, I believe. What makes it reliable?

   There is also a heavy reliance on alagaesia.com. Is there any way that other reliable sources could be found?

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The infobox could use a caption, even though it seems pretty obvious. In addition, could you alternate the images: right, left, right, left (including the quote box)? NW (Talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I started moving going through the lead, but I realized that much work still has to be done. I am going to close this GA Nomination now and ask that the article be sent to peer review. I am going to close this GA review, and ask that you please get one or two outside reviewers to look over this article before renominating this for GA. In addition, when you do, please be sure to address the other points I have mentioned. Thanks, NW (Talk) 13:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, Thanks for taking the time to review the article! I will address the issues you brought up below.

• Images: I have added a caption now so this should be done.
• Reliable sources: I think this and this proves that Shurtugal.com is a somewhat reliable source. The only information from Shurtugal.com used in the article is from interviews with Paolini. I seriously doubt Shurtugal.com made those interviews up (some of them are audio, too, so you can hear Paolini's voice), so I think the website passes WP:SPS. I will try to find some more reliable secondary sources before the next nomination, though.
• MoS compliance: This has also been taken care of.
• Prose: Not my strong side, so I'll submit the article for a peer review like you suggested.

Theleftorium 13:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)