Jump to content

Talk:Siegfried Huneck/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 07:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
  • Okay, pretty solid article overall, but I have a few comments. Suggestions for rewording are optional, while those based on MOS should generally be implemented.
  • The lead shouldn't have any citations, especially since all the info seem to already be cited in the body.
  • 9 September 1928 – 9 October 2011 → 9 September, 1928 – 9 October, 2011 per MOS:DATECOMMA
  • All the German words and phrases in the article need lang templates.
  • "primary school here" → "primary school there"
  • "delay because of" → "delay caused by"
  • "study chemistry University of Jena" → "study chemistry at the University of Jena"
  • "time, so no" → "time and so no"
  • "on the chemistry of amino-derivatives of pentacyclic triterpenes" → "on the chemistry of amino-derivatives of pentacyclic triterpenes"
  • "retirement, in 1995 Huneck" → "retirement, in 1995, Huneck"
  • Are the binominal authorities for the species named after him necessary? They don't seem particularly relevant.
  • Perhaps add a photo of one of the species named after him, as otherwise the article entirely lacks images.
  • On what basis were the publications mentioned chosen?
  • My criteria were sort of a combination of "not too short", "representative of his life work", "has been discussed/mentioned as an important work of his in his obituary", but I'm open to suggestions for adding/removing. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs are consistently formatted and reliable.
  • A couple searches of random phrases from teh article turned up nothing except for Wikipedia and mirrors, so copyvio seems good. AryKun (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]