Talk:The Student (short story)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 15:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. 15:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
No concerns in Lead, Plot, Publication, or Reception. Fantastic job.

"He described the effect of "The Student" as indescribably moving" - variations of describe get used in close proximity here. I think it would read better as "He said the effect..."

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concerns
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig returns minor results. AFG for print sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The publication details go no further than 1894. Has the work been republished outside of Tales and Stories?

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no evidence of edit warring or vandalism
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
rationale provided

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Caption is suitable.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
One minor copyedit suggestion and one question about publication. Other than that, this is by far the easiest GA pass I've had. Fantastic work User:Bobamnertiopsis. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on the 'described as indescribably' bit; that didn't even occur to me! I'll look into subsequent publications over the next few days and let you know when I figure something out. Thanks for the review! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 19:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Please ping me when work is complete. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the expansion. I think this is suitable for GA status now. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]