Talk:Peter I Island/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Night w (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 01:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments

Article looks good at the moment, if a little small... There are a couple of issues, but these shouldn't take too long to clear up. I will do a copyedit first, then check referencing, then place a detailed review here.

I've done a thorough copyedit of the article and added maintenance tags where I believed they were called for. The refwork looks good for the moment. The main question that seems to be looming over this review is whether all major aspects of the topic are covered adequately.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Although there are a few sentences that could do with tightening a bit.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Toolserver has picked up on some possible weasel words.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thank you for taking the time and effort to review the article. I've gone through the maintenance tags; most things are referenced, and there seems to be only one thing that somehow has been missed. As for "a few", that is the wording in the source, so I cannot be more accurate than that. Thank you for the copyedit, which is most appreciated, but please to not change to British spelling. I write in American English, and to keep the text consistent it is necessary to give the {{convert}} template an extra parameter, see WP:ENGVAR. As for the length of the article, there is nothing more worth mentioning. It is a nearly inaccessible island consisting of a glacier which near zero human activity. What is worth mentioning has been said. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have your own style of writing, but if you are familiar with WP:ENGVAR then you should understand that other editors may have a different style. Since you changed the spelling a few days ago, upon submission of this GAN, my edit was actually a revert to keep the existing style. I will trust your judgement on the rest. Nightw 16:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have your permission to change the spelling back to the original, per retain? I don't see any other reason for why this nomination should not pass. Nightw 16:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article from scratch (rewriting all content) back in May 2010 in one edit, and as you can see from the diff, it included American spelling and the use of the |sp=us syntax in the convert fields. I'm a little uncertain of when this was removed, by when I added the |sp=us syntax prior to the nomination I was simply reverting back to the original variety of the language. So I retain my right to use American spelling in this article; please do not revert this again. Otherwise, again, thank you for the review. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was simply going off the fact that you were adding spelling parameters that were not consistent with the spelling used in the earliest incarnations of the article. I'm still a little concerned with the overall length of the article, but it appears to me to pass the criteria. Thanks and good work, Nightw 11:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]