Talk:Lichtenstein Castle (Württemberg)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: 10W40 (talk · contribs) 14:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll get started now and work more on the review later.
- Doesn't the picture make the subject look like a smaller version of Neuschwanstein? Neuschwanstein is mentioned in the text so I take it there is a connection. But who copied who?
- The only place the architect is named is in the infobox, which strikes me as an omission.
- I checked the German version of the article and I see that this is basically a translation. I guess that's where all the German words come from. I did some copy editing so it's now more fully translated.
- As near as I can tell, Nueschwanstein, Cologne Cathedral, and the other buildings mentioned are connected to this subject only by the fact they are also in Gothic Revival style. I was tempted to take this material out, but then it occurred to me that there would be very little left in the article.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- There are various German words in the text that I don't see any need for: Albtrauf, Neues Schloss, Forsthaus, Rittersaal, Fürstenbau and Oberförster. If the title of the article is Lichtenstein Castle, you should stick to that through the article, not switch to Schloss Lichtenstein.
- The deal breaker as far as good article status goes is the "[how?]" and the "[citation needed]" tags. These need to be dealt with somehow.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- I cranked up the copyvio engine. There is nothing even close to this article anywhere else.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- A picture of the castle should be on top, not the coat of arms.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Editor comments
[edit]Firstly, I'd like to thank you for reviewing my article I've submitted this article twice before for evaluation at WikiProject Military history's assessment requests page and both times, despite improvements to length, was told that the article is somewhat lacking with references, which I agree with but was mostly unable to assuage. Thanks again!
Initial comment response
At the top of the page, there is the use of both Template:Distinugish and Template:Other uses. There is a filled etymology slot with citation in the infobox that I did not add (if memory serves another editor added it as a correction of one of my edits). The idea of adding the differences between "Licht" and "Liech" are trivia at best IMO.
The picture used in the article is indeed Lichtenstein Castle and not Nueschwanstein; no content from that page was used on this page.
Review comments
- The Albtrauf is a geological formation so I haven't amended it, but I have now either made the German variant of a term ancillary to its English counterpart or replaced it with English as per your comment.
- I did indeed not directly copy anything, but I did echo a lot of what the castle's website had on their site.
- No comment
- No comment
- No comment
- I have removed the coat of arms.
- As far as the recent edits go, the "[how?]" is still there, so the article still not in a passable condition. By copying, I meant that the architect may have copied Nueschwanstein, or that the Nueschwanstein architect might have copied this building. I didn't mean to accuse the author of anything. 10W40 (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I see now. Neuschwanstein was built about 20 years after Lichtenstein, so I didn't think to give it a mention more than the obvious.
- Neuschwanstein is also Romanesque Revival rather than Gothic Revival. :-) Generally, Ludwig II is thought to have been inspired primarily by Wartburg Castle at Eisenach. Drow69 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I see now. Neuschwanstein was built about 20 years after Lichtenstein, so I didn't think to give it a mention more than the obvious.
- As far as the recent edits go, the "[how?]" is still there, so the article still not in a passable condition. By copying, I meant that the architect may have copied Nueschwanstein, or that the Nueschwanstein architect might have copied this building. I didn't mean to accuse the author of anything. 10W40 (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)