Jump to content

Talk:Summerhill (book)

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

DYK nomination

[edit]
{{Did you know nominations/Summerhill (book)}} czar 

There's almost nothing about the content of the book or ideas containe therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.235.1.4 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Summerhill (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 14:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try my best to complete the review in a couple of days. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 14:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status – Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

[edit]

The article is a cool one and fine. But here some points of concern:

@The Herald, thanks for the review! Could me merged how? czar  17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ done czar  17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean a navbox? No, the topic group is too small: the school, Neill, and the book. I'm looking into another option... czar  17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What aspects are not covered in the current Legacy section? I believe Bailey is the best overview available. czar  17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

The article is passed the GA review. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.