Talk:Ray Kurzweil/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 17:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Against my own better judgment, and the comment made on the article talk page, I will not quick fail this article. Yes, there is considerable unsourced text here, which could lead one to justifiably quick fail the article. However, it's not completely unsourced, and I feel it's pretty well written, and I'll allow time for sourcing to be provided.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead is too short. For an article of 23kb prose, MOS:LEAD suggests two or three paragraphs. I don't like the header titles chosen ("Early life", "Mid-life", "Later life"), and I suggest this be changed to more adequately explain his life in terms of his career and achievements, rather than merely setting arbitrary timeframes that make him sound over the hill. I feel these sections should be better integrated with the later sections in the page ("Involvement with futurism and transhumanism", "Stance on nanotechnology", "The Law of Accelerating Returns", "Predictions", "Health and aging"), which do not fit in well as currently structured. Otherwise, the prose is the strength of this article. The language used is very good throughout.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This is the major problem of this article. The "Early life" section is undersourced. There are three paragraphs in the "Mid-life" section that have no sources whatsoever. The "Later life", "Involvement with futurism and transhumanism", and "Predictions" sections continues the trend of unsourced paragraphs. There is also a tag, that has been there since December 2011. That's a big problem, and makes me wonder about why the article was nominated as it is. Many of the sources seem to be tagged as dead links.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article seems to cover the subject well, and does not take any tangents.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is a criticism section, which I believe is appropriate given the fact that the subject's work has been criticized. I'm going to hold off on fully reviewing this section at this time, since I might be failing it soon anyway.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable. There was a flurry of editing by the nominator on the day prior to the nomination.

6. 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):

   The article includes two images from Commons, and both are fine.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Maybe I should have quick failed this, now that I've gotten further through the review. However, I feel that as it is not totally unreferenced, and doesn't have any orange tags, that quick failing it would be a little extreme. Besides, this article does have real strengths, and with work, could become a GA. Let's see how well you can fix it up in a week or two.

• It's been about a week with no responses or work done, so I'm failing this now. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)