Talk:Core countries/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. My review should be posted shortly. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them here or at my talk page. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started my review below. You're welcome to work on these issues while I complete the review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm done for now. Once you've addressed these issues, I'll check for outstanding issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and formatting

The lead section (the introduction, before your subheadings) should be at least 2 paragraphs.(Check SV)
As Piotrus suggested, you should incorporate more links to other articles (Check SV)
These aren't stubs any more - you can remove the stub tags (CHECK)
Only the first word of headings should be capitalized (unless a proper noun). Also check on the Manual of Style guidelines for hyphens and dashes(CHECK)
- No, not checked. You've fixed capitalization, but not the hyphens vs dashes. Make sure you've completely addressed each point before abandoning it. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)(Check SV)[reply]
The history section should appear immediately after the definition section (CHECK)
Avoid one-paragraph subsections and one-sentence paragraphs (Check SV)
Try reading over each others' sections. Act as reviewers for each other, especially when it comes to issues of prose and grammar. (Check SV)
Don't use jargon. Wikipedia articles should be written so that a reasonably intelligent high-school student could understand (any specific terms? SV)
Some sections are over-spaced - leave one line of blank space between text and headings, no more (Check SV)
"Functions" should be a separate section, maybe after "Qualifiers" (CHECK)
No external links in article text (Check SV)
Be consistent - for example, you've got "First World War" and "World War 2" in the same paragraph, the format should be the same (CHECK)
The EU is not a nation; neither is America, although the US is (CHECK)

Accuracy and verifiability

Make sure all of your footnotes come immediately after punctuation, without spaces. ".[1]" is correct; "[1]." or ". [1]" is not. (Check)
Don't use bare URLs in references (Check SV)
Books need page numbers (Check SV)
If you use the exact same reference more than once, name it to simplify sourcing. Here's how: the first time the ref appears, write "<ref name="Smith">Smith, John. More ref details.</ref>"; the next time you use the same ref, just write "<ref name="Smith"/>". If the page number is different, you can't use this.(Check SV)
You must include a minimum of one footnote per paragraph, usually more (except in the lead).
Make citation format consistent between group members
Check spelling and grammar in citations (what's a "leviatan"?) (Check SV)
Book titles should be italicized (Check SV)
Need complete information for each citation - title, author, publisher, location (if you choose to include it), date, isbn (for books)...

Broad

The "Key Qualifiers" section could use expansion and clarification
"Overall" should be deleted and its point incorporated into another section (Check SV)
Include a brief description of semi-periphery and periphery

Neutrality

You need to use a more encyclopedic tone - see WP:TONE.
Avoid using "we" (Check SV)
Look at WP:WTW - certain words introduce editorial bias and should be used with great care.

Images

Make sure to spread the images out so that you're not sandwiching text between images. Check out WP:Image tutorial for tips.
Make sure caption colours are relatively close to the actual colours on the map (Check SV)
Don't use the same image twice (Check SV)
First image - description page (click on image to access) gives image date as 2009 (that is when it was edited for softer colors, yet data is from 2008 SV)
Roman Empire and Mongol Empire maps - what do the other colours indicate? (grady? the rest of the world. The legend for the Mongol map is seen upon clicking on it SV)
Western Europe map - nominated for deletion due to lack of copyright information. If you can't fix that, I would suggest simply removing the map (CHECK)
Scar image - download link is dead (Check SV)

Keeping Track of Checklist

I started fixing some of the things that are in the Good Article Checklist. Everything that becomes finished, I am going to put a (CHECK) beside so we can keep track of what needs done.

Prg22 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and fixed all the citations. I will continue working on the other things on the list today. JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All my citations now include page numbers. Sav12 (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CITATION FORMAT

Hey group - we do really need to figure out how we are going to cite our references. I guess we should have established this before - oops haha! What does everyone think of this setup:

Author. Book Title (page numbers). City of Publication: Publisher, Year. ISBN Code.

What does everyone think? Also, with the page numbers - Piotr said we could keep one reference for a page span of a maximum of 10 - other than that - start creating new references. JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, but remember to consider other necessary citations (for encyclopedias, journals, etc), as well as the placement and format of your weblinks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the web link, have the ISBN Code be the thing the user would click on to access the book or source. Example:

Last name, First name. Book Title (p.1-2). City: Publisher, Year. ISBN 002233455

I just used the citation from MLA - maybe this is what we should go by as the formatting for all citations. Just a thought. JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea to standardize citations. Personally I am used to ASA style, but MLA is fine, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do i not see anything wrong with citations as they are now? Sav12 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few citations that need to have the URL links constricted. Other than that, all's fine but do add the references to key sentences that are missing them (I added several citation requested tags to them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Format

Hey I was thinking about splitting the definiton section with the lead and the sociological theory section - what do people think of this? I think from a reader's perspective it would make more our paper flow better if it went:

Lead
Sociological Theory
Function
History
Key Quailifiers (or perhaps combine this with the lead section?)
Effects
See also
References

JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Function comes after History, and Qualifiers must remain a separate section (you can't put stuff in the lead that isn't in the article body). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well I will work on bettering the lead and add to the Key Qualifiers sections. JuliaLynchPIT2010 (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]