Talk:Cú Chulainn/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
GA review
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A interesting, readable article.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Yes, but a few more would not go a miss.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations, on this well written article. If you intend to take it further, to WP:FAC, you will need to improve the referencing (in-line citations), but it is just about adequate for GA. I'm therefore awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- What, exactly, needs improving about the cites? If a text is long enough that summarising it takes three paragraphs, surely it is not necessary to find separate cites for each paragraph, or for that matter multiple identical cites? Surely a single cite to a translation of the text at the end of the summary suffices? I have replaced some of the cites to Cross & Slover (a collection of translated texts) with cites to academic translations in journals to avoid the (misleading) appearance of over-reliance on a single source, and removed your multiple cites to the same tertiary source. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- At GA level, if it takes three paragraphs to summarise a topic or subtopic I see no reason why the same source cannot be used as verification for each of the three paragraphs. I added Squire to those paragraphs without any sources - it is the only version of Cúchulainn that I have. I have no particular objection if Squire is removed and replace by something else, but I don't like unreferenced paragraphs. I would not have passed the article as it currently exists. FAC is more stringent, for example verification of each statement is necessary.Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- But that leads to situations, like the one I've recently corrected on Alan Moore, where consecutive sentences in the same paragraph were footnoted to the same reference, which on examination proved to inaccurate - the reference did not say what the article said it said. More footnote numbers scattered around the article does not equal better referenced. A single footnote to an accurate reference is, to my mind, better than loads of copies of the same footnote and will be understood by any sensible reader as applying to the whole subsection if that subsection is a précis of a single story. You only need to repeat the reference if it's "interrupted" by a reference to something else. I also think excessive footnoting is as annoying and distracting as excessive wikilinking. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The requirement is not "truth" but WP:verify and that is particularly important in the case of living people (and people with living relatives). In the case of Alan Moore it seems that the article misquoted references, and that was established by checking the references; so parts of the article failed the "verify" tests. I don't see too much difference with Cúchulainn, on that point, where there are many unreferenced paragraphs. I used Squire to check the validity of some of these paragraphs; and they were verifiable, but they are now unreferenced (and hence not verifiable - the onus is on the editor adding the text not the reader or GA assessor). I'm not going to take steps to revoke GA-status, it is not that "serious"; but it would be possible by asking for a WP:GAR. There is one major difference, Alan Moore is alive, so legal action for slander, or libel are foreseeable risks. Wikipedia is unlikely to get sued by Cúchulainn, if we have misquoted his actions. I would not currently pass Alan Moore at present because there are too many red-line links and multiple {{fact}} flags. Sorry I would not necessarily agree with your final point, King Arthur and Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal, for example, are both FAs; but I would not regard them as excessively over footnoted nor as annoying and distracting as excessive wikilinking.Pyrotec (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- But that leads to situations, like the one I've recently corrected on Alan Moore, where consecutive sentences in the same paragraph were footnoted to the same reference, which on examination proved to inaccurate - the reference did not say what the article said it said. More footnote numbers scattered around the article does not equal better referenced. A single footnote to an accurate reference is, to my mind, better than loads of copies of the same footnote and will be understood by any sensible reader as applying to the whole subsection if that subsection is a précis of a single story. You only need to repeat the reference if it's "interrupted" by a reference to something else. I also think excessive footnoting is as annoying and distracting as excessive wikilinking. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The paragraphs are not unreferenced, and they may be verified by checking the references given. If "good article" status depends on counting redundant footnote markers then I'll not be bothering with it again. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)