Talk:Straight razor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 17:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a glance and I can see a few MoS issues (the lead doesn't follow WP:Lead, and the layout doesn't follow WP:Layout), but there is plenty of material, and I see cite notes, so hopefully it's just a matter of tidying things up. I'll take a look over the next few days and then leave some initial comments. SilkTork *^YES! 17:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
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:

This is a very detailed and informative article. Well done. Some quick comments on GA criteria:

Article is stable. It is mainly the work of User:Dr.K.. SilkTork *^YES! 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images have appropriate tags. Some captions are rather long - see WP:Caption. Some of the images squeeze the text, and there are too many images. Select a few high quality, representative images, and remove the rest. See MOS:IMAGES and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(layout)#Images. SilkTork *^YES! 18:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MoS. For such a long and informative article, the lead does not adequately cover the subject. See WP:Lead. Some sections are rather short which makes the article appear cluttered and impedes flow. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout).
Neutral. The article is mainly neutral - though statements such as "Still others agree that straight razors provide a superior shave" appear to be asserting a point of view.
References. There are sources, and the sources are organised into a section. The presentation of the sources is non-standard, in that it quotes extensively - see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations for guidance on ways to present citations. The main problem however is the type, reliability and appropriateness of the sources. There are a couple of tertiary sources, and a number of commercial websites combined with enthusiast websites. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. The article is in need of good quality, reliable secondary sources. A book such as [http://www.amazon.com/History-Shaving-Razors-Phillip-Krumholz/dp/0962098701 History of Shaving and Razors] may be worth getting, this article may be helpful, and this, and [http://www.amazon.com/Straight-Razor-Collecting-Robert-Doyle/dp/0891451269 this] and [http://www.amazon.com/Art-Shaving-Myriam-Zaoui/dp/0609609157 this]. I'll continue to browse through, though this review will be put on hold for a week to allow better quality sources to be found and used.
Coverage. This article is related to the parent article Razor, and will share much of that article's history - so some consideration will need to be made as to how much material belongs in Razor and how much in Straight razor. Should Jean Jacques Ferret be mentioned in this article? And the first recorded date of the folding razor. This has some information. SilkTork *^YES! 19:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

The review is on hold for an initial seven days to allow appropriate sources to be found, consulted and used in the article. Seven days is not long, so I understand that more time may be needed, though I'd like to check back in seven days to see what progress is being made, and what problems are being encountered. I can be pinged on my talkpage at any time to answer any queries. SilkTork *^YES! 19:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the main contributor is busy at the moment. I feel that there is rather too much work to be done to get this to meet GA criteria in a reasonable time even with an editor able to focus time on it. I will close this as not listed tomorrow unless I get a convincing reason not to. SilkTork *^YES! 11:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close - not listed

I have tidied up some of the more obvious problems with the article, and tagged for those areas which still need attention. The article does need better quality sources. When the issues have been dealt with the article can be nominated again. Good luck! SilkTork *^YES! 09:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]