Talk:Johannes van Damme/GA1
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: WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk · contribs) 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811 thank you for making the effort to review the article, I put in alot of effort to cross reference everything that went into it, and if you look back on the edits i have made you will see the incremental improvements over nearly 12 months with reference links to various articles & archived documents backing up each part WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- No problem! Feel free to respond to comments below as I go, or in comments up here. I should be done with my initial review in a couple of days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811 cool ... regarding "trouble analyzing some sources", i am not sure if you are using an automated tool but quite a few <ref> make use of archived newspapers (such as https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/) that contain microfilm images rather than HTML text, so that would obviously affect automated tools, also for articles behind a paywall i used an archive site (https://archive.ph/) to read the full text, however i used the original URL in the <ref> so as if the archive site is shut down the link is not lost .... feel free to ask questions if u require any further clarification, i am online almost everyday WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the Earwig tool will have trouble with those, it just requires some manual spot-checking on my part. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- sure thing, i have tried to paraphrase the newspaper reports as much as possible to avoid allegations of plagiarism, also to give a bit of colour to rather dry court reports in some instances 15:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll try and complete the review in the next couple days, but it may be delayed to Saturday due to the US holiday - just wanted to let you know! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- no problem, take your time, much appreciated WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- regarding my edit "Drug smuggling investigation: reverting to previous heading, so as to match layout of similar articles" ... should i perhaps split into two sub headings under this ? (i.e.) ==Back ground to arrest== // ===American D.E.A. investigation=== / ===C.N.B. surveillance in Singapore=== WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that would be helpful, yes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- regarding moving the "revelation" to the Incarceration on Death Row section, i think it is disruptive to the narrative, as the timeline suddenly jumps to after the execution and it also appear in the middle of Van Damme trying to get a retrial (on the basis he is innocent or at the very least not guilty) .... it would be better moving back to original place IMO .... WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine - I moved it just because it's not really about his execution. However i see your point, feel free to move it back. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, please check lower/uppercase on "van Bladel" vs "Van Bladel" for the middle of sentences vs start of sentences. I think there's a few that are misplaced. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- someone changed it to that exact format for Van Damme a while back, i think thats the "proper way" of doing it, so i was just following the rule for van Bladel too WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, please check lower/uppercase on "van Bladel" vs "Van Bladel" for the middle of sentences vs start of sentences. I think there's a few that are misplaced. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine - I moved it just because it's not really about his execution. However i see your point, feel free to move it back. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- regarding moving the "revelation" to the Incarceration on Death Row section, i think it is disruptive to the narrative, as the timeline suddenly jumps to after the execution and it also appear in the middle of Van Damme trying to get a retrial (on the basis he is innocent or at the very least not guilty) .... it would be better moving back to original place IMO .... WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that would be helpful, yes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll try and complete the review in the next couple days, but it may be delayed to Saturday due to the US holiday - just wanted to let you know! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- sure thing, i have tried to paraphrase the newspaper reports as much as possible to avoid allegations of plagiarism, also to give a bit of colour to rather dry court reports in some instances 15:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the Earwig tool will have trouble with those, it just requires some manual spot-checking on my part. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811 cool ... regarding "trouble analyzing some sources", i am not sure if you are using an automated tool but quite a few <ref> make use of archived newspapers (such as https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/) that contain microfilm images rather than HTML text, so that would obviously affect automated tools, also for articles behind a paywall i used an archive site (https://archive.ph/) to read the full text, however i used the original URL in the <ref> so as if the archive site is shut down the link is not lost .... feel free to ask questions if u require any further clarification, i am online almost everyday WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- No problem! Feel free to respond to comments below as I go, or in comments up here. I should be done with my initial review in a couple of days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Putting on hold for a week, as discussed below, to give time for the nominator to make sourcing tweaks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have updated the ref tags to the best of my ability, please review WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- This article now meets the GA standard - congrats to WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker, and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
As this is a recurring issue, I won't list them all, but please go through all the citations and ensure that, where available, the author is given, the publisher is linked, any rehoster is noted (with the "via" attribute of template), and it is archived if possible. Where an ISSN is available, please add that as well.
Note: Not all these issues have yet been addressed - title case, missing authors/publishers, etc. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC) (WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC) working on it)
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |