Talk:The Concrete Herald/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 01:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IMO the "political alignment" of the paper may be slightly over-emphasized. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The image in the infobox is (valid) fair-use. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Extended Discussion

I'm not convinced its appropriate to consider the "modern" Concrete Herald and the paper from 1901-1991 to be the same thing, and to discuss them in the same article. Would it be reasonable to split this into two separate articles? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading it a few more times, I think it should stay in this article, but all the "revival" content should be clearly in a separate section. The "Distribution" section specifically is confusing (and the table layout needs improvement, but that's a separate issue). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: thank you for taking time to review this nomination! A couple of questions:

There is "Revival" section in the article. Do you mean that the treatment of the revival in the preamble is too extensive?
Could you be more specific as to how "distribution" is unclear and what changes you'd expect?

Thanks again, 凰兰时罗 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The preamble/lead section is fine. I am suggesting that the "Awards" and the "Historical Distribution" section that deals with the original paper should be before the "Revival" section. That way, all the "original paper" content is together, and then all the "revival paper" content is together. Not going to have time to comment further on this until tomorrow, sorry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries -- whenever you have more time... Meanwhile, I moved the revival section to the end. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-ordered it to what I feel is more appropriate. Feel free to make your own changes. The layout of the table of price and circulation is still bad, I'm not entirely sure why it is behaving the way it is. Once you're happy with the section ordering and the table layout is fixed, I'll pass this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the distribution graphs up by a paragraph into the previous section. I think it looks better now. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "floatright" bit, and am happy with it now. Feel free to revise further, but I don't think it should block this any longer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, thanks a lot for your efforts :) 凰兰时罗 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]