Talk:The Forgotten Kings/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 07:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This appears to be about a book of WP:FRINGE history (judging from wording like "contrary to the opinion of most historians" in the lead) and except for a single published review used to source a single sentence, and some of the small "Legacy" section, is sourced almost entirely to the book itself, rather than to reliable independent sources about the book. The English is bad to the point of at times being nearly unreadable. If there are enough reliable independent sources with enough independent coverage of this book to pass WP:GNG, I didn't see them in the article and didn't find them in searching the web. I conclude that this is so far from WP:GACR #1a and #2c (not to mention core policy like WP:NPOV) as to be a quick fail under WP:GAFAIL. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: hi David Eppstein. i think i can finde some independent sources and if it's need i can rewrite the whole article, Just let me know what I should to do, because this is my first GA review.Amir Ghandi (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- (1) Find multiple reliably published sources that cover the content of the book in depth (such as published book reviews in academic journals), assuming these sources exist
- (2) Rewrite the article entirely based on what those sources say about what is in the book. State clearly what parts of the book the sources accept as valid and what parts are disputed and why. Do not base any of the article on your own reading of the book. Cite those references clearly indicating which parts of the rewritten article are based on which references, with at least a citation per paragraph (more if parts of the paragraph are based on different sources). Be sure to rewrite this all in your own words, without just copying the words of the sources.
- (3) Get a native speaker of English to help you copyedit the rewritten article to be in clear English (e.g. through WP:GOCE).
- (4) Re-nominate the article once its English is polished, its content covers all major topics covered by reliable sources about the book, the article is written neutrally (reflecting the consensus of scholarship on these topics and not just what this book says), and all content is properly referenced. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)