Talk:Gerard Krefft/GA2
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Lindsay658 (talk · contribs) 01:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 15:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
This is an interesting person and an extensive article. However, it does not currently meet several of the GA criteria, and would need significant work to get there. I have to fail the article, but I will leave some instructions below that can be followed to get this article on the way to GA.
1) The article fails GA criterion 2, as there are many sentences without inline citations. One example is this sentence: a fact that explains, in the absence of any coherent account in English of Blandowski's collected material, the value of Krefft's later accounts (1865a and 1865b) of the expedition's discoveries. As this is not sourced, it seems to me that you came to that conclusion yourself based on the previous (sourced) information. If that is correct, it would fall under WP:Synth, something we have to avoid.
2) It fails GA criterion 3 because it goes into unnecessary detail and does not stay focussed on the article. Recently, a respective template was added to the article by another author, so I am not alone with this assessment. An example of the lack of focus is the "Natural History" section. This entire does not seem to be about the person at all, nor does it really provide necessary background information; there are other articles to discuss these matters.
3) The structure of the article is unclear and confusing. For a start, you need some major headings that each have subheadings to get a structure. For example, you have the section "Research" at the end of the article, which is in list style. This kind of section is very non-standard for Wikipedia, I haven't seen that before; this kind of information should be a normal section instead. But more problematically, you have other sections on his research further up – so the problem is the way how the information is organized.
4) Some content is of very questionalbe relevance; for example, is "He is also renowned for having eaten what may well have been the last extant specimens" really a valid entry under "Legacy"?
5) Paragraph-long quotes do not belong in the lead. The lead should summarise the article.
6) In general, the article often does not comply with basic Wikipedia guidelines. For example, we do not provide external weblinks directly in the main text. These should either be references, or placed under "weblinks".
What I would suggest is looking at featured articles on similar persons, such as Charles Darwin, and take that as a model. Pay attention to the writing style, the selection of content, and the structure. You could have the same major headings here, for example. Good luck with the article; I hope to see it again in the future in a much improved form! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)