Talk:Concealed shoes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 00:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC) I shall complete this review in the following few days. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Generally the prose is in good shape, but there is so little of it for such a major topic. Furthermore, we have statements such as "Manning has proposed..." which leave the reader to think "who is Manning? Why should we care what he thinks ?" Fairly minor problems such as this permeate the little text that we do have. There is at least one error of fact; although he does possess a history degree, Brian Hoggard is an archaeologist rather than a historian, as it established in this recent interview with him. That same interview also reveals that he is in the process of publishing a far more definitive book on items such as concealed shoes, which those interested in building this article should take notice of.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Major omissions in the lead section; for instance it does not state the geographical distribution of this custom. More generally, the lead does not follow the MOS by summarising the rest of the article's contents.
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.	It is not acceptable to reference an entire thesis; you must reference the specific page number.
	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).	There are unreferenced statements such as "Northampton was once a major shoemaking centre", and a whole paragraph in the "Explanations" section.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Unreferenced statements such as "Northampton was once a major shoemaking centre" might well constitute original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is an awful lot missing here. Major texts that discuss this subject have not been used in the construction of the article; where are the references to Owen Davies, Keith Thomas, and Stephen Wilson ? Why have none of the publications of The Folklore Society been consulted? In its current state, the article is nowhere near comprehensive enough to make it to GA status.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article shows promise, and there is clearly some good work that has been done here. But I really feel that this is quite far away from being a GA status article, so I'm afraid to say that this is a clear fail. Sorry! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)