Jump to content

Talk:GISHWHES/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: ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) 05:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

My first impression is that the article is well referenced but the prose needs some work. I am not sure if it is a case where taking another look will make it obvious to the original author (I often find it much easier to improve my own prose weeks/months after I wrote it than at the time I originally wrote) or if it is a case where another pair of eyes is needed. If you'd like help with the prose, I'd suggest making a request with at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I of course can (and will) make specific suggestions, but usually it is more efficient to have someone give it a good, careful copy edit first.

A couple of general points to guide the process: 1) The history section seems to jump around random - it should be chronological. 2) The contest section also is weirdly ordered. The price is probably the least important thing, not what you want to be mentioning first. It should start with a description of the rules (roughly what paragraph 2 is) and then go into details (such as price). --

I will put the article  On hold to give you a chance to work on the prose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping on this one! These are definitely valid concerns which I will get to over the next few days; I'm not terribly busy right now, this isn't a long article, and I don't want this review to take too much of your time. Thanks again! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 02:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've completed an initial restructuring of the article. I've aimed to make the History section flow more chronologically, the Contest section reveal the details of the actual competition before the less important signup info, and the Challenges section have a natural break between a representative description of some interesting challenges and the info about the success rates for various prompts. Thoughts? Thanks, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 15:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orthography note: punctuation should go inside quotation marks "like this." rather than "like this". Dontreadalone (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, per MOS:LQ. If the period is in the cited quotation then it should be included in the quotation marks; if it is not, it stays on the outside. I believe I have correctly observed this throughout. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 22:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. At least in American usage, commas and periods always go inside the quotation mark. I didn't know Wiki had its own house rule. I'll defer to your preference given that it's consistent. Dontreadalone (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 05:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @ThaddeusB:, just a heads up; I've completed a first round of work on this article and it's ready for you to take another look. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 13:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing the changes this evening, thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things

[edit]

A made some minor changes. Please review them and make sure they are acceptable to you (and free of errors). Most are grammar tweaks. I also removed a couple "duplicate" citations (the norm is for multiple sentences supported by one source to get only one citation unless a quotation is involved).

I have a few suggestions:

That is all for now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for your edit; I'm really happy with the grammar stuff you've done. On the other hand, I only ever include multiple citations per sentence if I'm actually pulling information from multiple sources within that sentence. Do you mind if I replace some of the refs you removed where applicable? I've always been a mid-sentence citer and I'm sorry you're not a fan of that; I can understand the aversion but, again, I often pull from multiple sources for a single sentence and would rather the specific information be cited at the end of each fact instead of piling too many references up at the end of a sentence. In any case, I'll try to respond to your other concerns pronto. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 23:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citation format is not a GA consideration, so you are free to undo the changes if you deem it best. (I only actually moved one or two where there was no punctuation mark - the others were removed due to the multiple sentence "norm" of 1 citation at the end of multiple sentences.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates on finsing material for a reaction section? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've had a remarkably busy week. I'm still working on it. I hope that's alright! It should be done within a week. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, take you time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusB: I've added a section of commentary, such as I could find. I hope that works. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 06:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any further issues that the reviewer sees that need to be addressed? Wizardman 03:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, this review slipped my mind. I'll finish it very soon, most likely tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I moved the response material into its own section. It could possibly move up above the gallery if you like (but there is nothing wrong with having text after a gallery), but certainly should be offset with a section header. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    A spot check did not reveal any close paraphrasing
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Very well referenced
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    No major omissions now that a "reception" section has been added
    B. Focused:
    Stay on topic - no needless asides
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The gallery pictures could possibly be enhanced by adding alttext (simply add "
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I am happy to promote GISHWES to GA status. Sorry the review process dragged on so long.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GISHWHES/GA1&oldid=1047594438"