Talk:Erez Lieberman Aiden/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 08:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC) OK, this looks pretty solid, but some quibbles[reply]

It's usual to start bios with something like "Joe Bloggs is an American lawyer" to give us a bit of context, rather than plough straight into the nitty-gritty
Evolution — link
numerous awards — "numerous" is a peacock word best omitted
spell out numbers less than ten
"Anglo-Saxon" links to the people rather than the language, is this intentional? Some Saxons wrote in Latin at least.
...and was permitted to analyse their data.[12] A study of Old English texts..." — are these the same project? A few more words to explain how he analysed the data might help
second world war. — usually capped
His thesis was also awarded the Hertz Thesis Prize — perhaps "his doctoral project" or similar to avoid repeat of thesis
DoB?
Outside of scientific interests — "outside his"?
Lieberman Aiden participated in a modern art collaboration — bit vague, "modern art" is a huge field
Michel, J. -B.; — looks like a stray space in ref 11
Capitalisation of reference titles is inconsistent, have them all the same style, even if it's not as in the original

I'll have another read through later, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review and for these helpful comments, I'll continue trying to address them as time allows Jebus989 ^✰ 14:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I've tried to address these points. I changed numerous -> "a number of", but admittedly that still sounds a little promotional; I'd be open to suggestions on how to further improve this. Regarding the modern art, I found and linked the article on the artists behind the work, will try to dig deeper and see if this is worth expanding or removing—admittedly artistic works are not my forté Jebus989 ^✰ 16:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look, but it will be tomorrow, since the Spurs v Basle match starts soon, need to get the beer in (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK< so we lost on a penalty shoot-out. I've made a couple of tweaks to the text, although I still need to read through again. We may have a problem with the image. I can't see where it says on the blog page that either the text or the image are in the public domain. Unless there is an explicit licence to copy and modify for any use, you can't use the image. You could ask for permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. Unless you can show me the image is verifiably public domain, or you can get permission as described above, you can't use it, and you can't pass GA while it's there Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlucky with the penalties! The two images I added were from a CC BY 3.0 blog post (license tag just above comments at the bottom of the page). I actually contacted the subject a while back and he donated several better images and figures but I have yet to slog the emails through OTRS and from what I understand there's a lengthy backlog. Thanks for the tweaks Jebus989 ^✰ 11:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I looked at the top and bottom of the page, but not the middle (:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks very much for the review! Jebus989 ^✰ 12:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]