Talk:Thinis/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I see this article has waited quite a while for a review. I have looked it over thoroughly and below is my review template for this article. TimonyCrickets (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: TimonyCrickets (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The information in this article is quite informative and obviously well researched. I have had the opportunity to check out a number of the books referenced and the information is accurate. However, there are a few issues with the writing itself.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- There are a number of issues with the flow of information in the article. There are many paragraphs which are only a single sentence. For example, in the "Name and location" section there are 5 paragraphs made up of 8 sentences. While this does get some of the information across, the structure is choppy and hard to follow. Additionally some sentences are quite long and may even be considered "run on". A good example is the opening sentence in the Lead.
- B. MoS compliance:
- As with the prose section above, I believe there are some manual of style issues, especially pertaining to punctuation. There are a number of areas where commas are used which make sentences quite choppy and awkward to follow. A thorough copy editing and reworking of some of the sentence and paragraphs should clear this up. As a note, much of the consistency in the article is very good! The issues I have are purely with the English.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Excellent use of references. I have checked out many of the books used in the article and the facts check out nicely. Well done.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- This article is a great example of a well researched and well cited topic.
- C. No original research:
- I cannot find even one instance where original research seems to be an issue.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- The article, while well researched, reads a bit like a bulleted list of important facts. To while the major aspects of the topic are covered, there is a lack of supporting discussion of those facts to help it read like an encyclopedic article.
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I am overall very pleased with the article and certainly think it holds a great amount of well researched information. However, in order to be considered for Good Article status I am afraid the prose, Manual of Style compliance and coverage issues will need to be updated in order to help it read a little less choppy, and a bit more like an encyclopedic article.
- Pass or Fail:
- This article has been inactive for more than 7 days with no changes according to the review provided. This article will be failed in the nomination and removed from the Good Article nomination list, but can be readded at a later date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimonyCrickets (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)