Talk:Further Adventures of Lad/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This is my first review, so I will definitely ask for a second opinion before pass/fail, and the article on hold until then. That said, here are a few of my observations.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass:
- Pass:
Comments:
[edit]Prose and MoS
- The phrase, " and felt Lad as unbelievable", in the lead section, makes little sense. Possibly you meant, "felt Lad was unbelievable"?
- Under The Coming of Lad, the statement, The couple, needs clarification. What couple?
- Under In Strange Company, the phrase, Lad playful teases a bear, needs correction.
- Under The Guard, the phrase, Her father makes her help him in her work, does not make sense.
- This sentence, under Development and publication, does not follow: Terhune reported that he received hundreds of letters from fans asking him to publish more stories about Lad, and to have had over 1,700 people visit Lad's grave at Sunnybank.
#Also, there are multiple red links which should be corrected.
Additional
- I would suggest adding a "See Also" section. Not necessary perhaps, but it appears that there would be plenty of applicable links.
Conclusion
I will place it on hold for a second opinion from a more experienced editor, and time for the comments to be addressed.
Reviewer: PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed the first five. Please clarify "red links which should be corrected"? I've removed two, but the remaining three all fall well under WP:REDLINK as articles likely to be created in the future, as they are all notable topics. I'll decline to add a see also, as I see no necessary applicable links for one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note about red links. My own personal preference is no red links, but that doesn't affect the review. Other than that, I do not have any problems with it, but I'm still waiting for another opinion. Like I said, this is my first review, so I'm sure I'm not doing things exactly correctly, but I'm trying to be bold and get a feel for the process. Outside of GA criteria, I can tell you've done a lot of work on the article and it looks really good. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Worth an on hold, perhaps, but I don't think that the errors are particularly egregious. I've given it an additional copyedit and corrected some quirks, so I think that it should be passed. The redlinks are compliant and definitely creatable in the future. Good job to both of you, AnmaFinotera and PrincessofLlyr. bibliomaniac15 03:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the second opinion. I have passed it now. If you want to check and make sure I do that correctly that might be a good idea! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)