Talk:Josephus Nelson Larned/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 03:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not very many education reviews around these parts. Happy to take a look.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1b: lede currently doesn't sum up the article
2b: direct quotes don't have immediate refs
3a: sections on, e.g., his early life are not comprehensive especially given the available sourcing
3a: not comprehensive on the treatment of time in education and politics—barely anything was said and this is supposed to be a big part of his career, no?
?: a picture of the paper would be more relevant than a picture of Twain
3b: there is a bit of undue weight on Twain, should be less about him and more about the subject's role at the paper
last line of Buffalo Express is unsourced
grammar: the end-of-sentence quotes should be preceded by a comma
pedantic: use en dashes for year ranges

outside scope of review

lede vital dates citations should be inside parentheses, and why does it need three refs?
more precise refs would help with WP:V in the future, also makes it really hard for a GAN reviewer to verify sources otherwise

Went over a week with no reply (even after automated talk page notification), so closing the nom czar ♔ 06:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]