Talk:Iron Rattler/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Has a reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been edgy reverts in the near past, but article has been stable for at least two months. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Covers all major aspects that a reader might want to know about. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Focus - no section appears too long or too detailed. The table in the Characteristics section takes up a lot of space - however it could be argued that this is a clear and simple way of presenting the comparison information. Another editor may decide to present the information differently, using prose to explain the differences, however, I don't think that the table as it stands is counter to the advice in WP:PROSE. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is well sourced with liberal and useful inline citations.SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of original research. Article remains close to sources where checked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Most MoS issues are OK. However, the lead doesn't adequately summarise the main points of the article as required by WP:Lead, a GA criteria. The lead needs some work. I may have time to deal with that myself as there isn't much to do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prose. Prose is mostly fine. The only issue is clarity regarding use of WP:Jargon, a GA criteria. Phrases such as "barrel roll inversion" would benefit from explanation for non-roller coaster specialists. See Outlaw Run where the same issue was dealt with - for example: [1]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

General comments

Sorry for long delay. I should have returned this GAN to the pot when I returned the others as I'd hardly started it. Anyway, I have some time this weekend and so will aim to finish the review before Monday. If I can't, then I will return it, as I don't think I will have time next week. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

This is a decent and informative article. My only quibbles are regarding the use of some phrases that may not be immediately clear to a non-specialist, such as "barrel roll inversion", and that the lead may not adequately summarise the main points of the article. On hold to allow these issues to be resolved. They are quite minor and I may do them myself shortly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up a bit, and now closing this as passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]