Jump to content

Talk:Jack and Jill/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: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's an interesting article with lots of potential but it would be improved by adding more information and avoiding the passive voice.

review
  • "The rhyme is known to date back to at least the 18th century and exists with different numbers and variations of additional verses" - The rhyme dates back at least to the 18th century ..."? - who knows it? Per WP:WEASELWORDS.
 Done - I took out the redundancy.--SabreBD (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jack & Jill in the act of tumbling down, according to William Wallace Denslow" - do you mean as illustrated by?
 Done
  • "It has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 10266." - what is the importance of this?
The Round index number is the standard way of cataloguing a folk song, so basically it establishes that it is a unique song. It would take a long time (and be rather repetitive) to explain this for every nursery rhyme (or folk song) on Wikipedia. Readers can find about this by clinking on the link.--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first and most commonly repeated verse is ... " explain who said it is first, when, etc.
That is in the meanings and origins section.--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • too much use of the passive voice.
e.g. "The rhyming of "water" with "after" has been taken to suggest that the first verse may date from the first ..." all of these instances should say who says this.
I added the Opie's names. Not sure what the other instances are: if its is explanations about Charles I and Louis XIV, then no one knows who first suggested those explanations.--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Interpretation" - those should be complete sentences.
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the woodcut that accompanied the first recorded version of the rhyme " - what was this? who recorded it?
Again, that information is in the origins section.--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, rather than brief sentences in the passive voice, the article would be improved by providing more information.
What sort of information do you have in mind?--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I may add more later.) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - ok, just a few things
  • "several variations. Several theories" - could you vary the wording?
 Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 10266" - you could put a short explanation in as you gave above. Especially in such a short article, the reader shouldn't have to do a lot of clicking especially in the lede.
 Done - I put a brief addition in the lead and then a fuller one in the text with a citation.--SabreBD (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply
  • "classifies the song as 10266" - this means it's the 10266 most frequently mentioned, or what?
  • also, could you just add a few more sentences to the lede per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    B. Remains focused:
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_and_Jill/GA1&oldid=1180419542"