Talk:Lucky and Squash/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 20:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 22, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
Copyvio Detector results -- https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Lucky+and+Squash&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1
Copyvio Detector = shows "Violation Unlikely 18.0% confidence" -- NICE WORK HERE, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, GOOD JOB !!!
Plot -- recommend change sect name to Plot synopsis.
Critical response -- suggest sect name of Reception or Critical reception.
I really like how all the "Notes" have in-line citations at the ends of them, excellent job here.
Notes -- recommend change sect name to Footnotes.
References -- suggest change sect name to Notes.
Bibliography -- recommend change sect name to References.
Critical response -- would read better if that sect were changed to past tense.
Critical response -- Would have better flow if broken up into 4 total, shorter, paragraphs.
In WP:LEAD sect, suggest eliminating names of reviewers if reviewers are themselves not-notable, and just mention names of the publications.

2. Verifiable?:

Checklinks tool results -- http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Lucky_and_Squash -- shows one or two issues.
As there are so few hyperlinks in this article, for this one should be easy, I'm going to recommend archiving all hyperlinks using Wayback Tool by Internet Archive with WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate.
Per WP:LEADCITE, the lede intro sect does not have controversial or contentious info, so the exact same info can be cited later on in the article body text, with cites then removed from the lede sect itself, please.
Please add in-line citations to the factual assertions made in the two image captions.

3. Broad in coverage?: Good job here, I particularly like the Background sect in this regard.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be written in a neutral tone with matter-of-fact presentation, no issues here.

5. Stable? Upon my inspection of article edit history and article talk page history, article appears to be stable going back at least over 3 months.

6. Images?:

File:Lucky and Squash.jpg -- fair use asserted, used in infobox, very good fair use rationale on image page. Good job here.
File:Jeanne Birdsall.jpg -- confirmed as appropriate free-use license from Flickr, good resolution and quality, hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Good job here.
File:Thisbe - John William Waterhouse.jpg -- hosted on Wikimedia Commons, licensed as public domain, no issues here.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, Cirt! I have implemented most of your suggested changes. I switched the "Critical response" section heading to read "Reception" as you recommended, although I didn't make the other section heading changes you proposed; I did a random sampling of the current featured articles relating to works of fiction, and I believe the section headings currently in use in this article are standard. See, for example, "Plot" as a section heading in Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel), Casino Royale (novel), and The Fox and the Hound (novel). These articles also use the words "Notes" and "References" as section headings for the same types of sections they are used for in this article. I have retained the literary present tense in the "Reception" section because this is the grammatically correct tense to use when discussing other authors' written comments, even though the Wikipedia community does not require its use. Here is Harvard's explanation of when to use the literary present. The Checklinks tool isn't showing me any issues. Is it still showing you some? I am loathe to remove the citations from after the direct quotations in the lead; I agree that citations should not appear in the lead in general, but I have been admonished on several occasions by reviewers of other articles in the past to place citations after all direct quotations in the lead, and I think it highly likely that reviewers will make this same admonishment in the future with this article if I remove the citations. Please let me know if you would like to discuss any of these issues further or if you have any additional concerns. Neelix (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Neelix, I completely accept all of your most polite and logical explanations, especially backing them up with citing three WP:FAs to boot. :) Good job overall, — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for such polite responsiveness to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]