Jump to content

Talk:Corps Altsachsen Dresden/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 21:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman 21:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

  • There are a few bare URLs that need formatting, namely the wikisource ones as well as a few others.
  • "Altsachsen always had a very strong connection with and commitment towards the university" rm always, a instead of and, and for that matter the sentence feels a bit off, pushing the lead a bit into POV territory.
  • "Members are encouraged to have their own point of view about the world and be able to argue it, but Altsachsen as an entity always remains neutral." again, rm always
  • "The fraternity has about 200 members of all ages (including alumni)" since it's all ages, the parentheses are redundant.
  • Most of the italicized phrases in the fundamentals section do not need to be; same for most of the article, actually.
  • The notable members seems questionable as is, since only half seem to have enwiki or dewiki articles. what makes the others notable then? At the least the unlinked ones should be sourced.
  • The see also section can just be the last link, no need for the other three.
  • My biggest issue is, while the article doesn't completely violate NPOV, there is a positive spin put on the article with the way the sentences and article are structured. Some of the examples are provided above, but it's a general issue.

This was found just on a skim read yesterday and today, so that tells me a closer read would have more of these same problems. I'd put it on hold, but since the main writer hasn't edited since the nom, I'll just fail it. Before a renomination, have the article go through a tone copyedit to make sure everything has been cleaned up. On the plus side, it's rather well-written and touches on the article's points well, it just doesn't read well enough to a lay reader for me to feel comfortable promoting it. Wizardman 21:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]