Talk:What Work Is/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 21:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Will ask for a second opinion if there is activity here, as I am an ESL I don't feel confident reviewing prose.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- 1) Failure of WP:LEAD. Lead (intro) should summarize the article and should not contain new information - failure on both counts. 2) Much more serious is the failure of WP:COPYVIO/WP:PLAGIARISM. It was even noted on talk of the article (sections above the review), yet nothing was done to address the issue. Both instances reported by Reactor factor are confirmed.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Seems fine.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Seems mostly fine, but few references need tweaking. Guillory needs title, date. Bureau needs title, date. Wilson Quarterly needs author. Also, last para of the Background is missing a reference.
- C. No original research:
- Seems fine.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Seems fine.
- B. Focused:
- Seems fine.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Seems fine.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Seems fine.
- 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:
- Seems fine.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: }
- Cover is all we can reasonably expect, and it is present.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Fix the lead, rewrite plagiarized fragments, and I'll ask for prose second opinion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- No response for over a week, which does not surprise me much given this was an educational assignment and the class has likely ended. It would be nice to hear anything from the instructor or the ambassador. In the holiday spirit, and taking into account possibly crazy RL, I'll wait for few more days. If no reply is pending by the time this reaches a 2-week mark, this will be an auto fail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- No sign of life, past two week mark. Fail mark for everybody concerned for wasting GA reviewer's (mine...) time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- No response for over a week, which does not surprise me much given this was an educational assignment and the class has likely ended. It would be nice to hear anything from the instructor or the ambassador. In the holiday spirit, and taking into account possibly crazy RL, I'll wait for few more days. If no reply is pending by the time this reaches a 2-week mark, this will be an auto fail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fix the lead, rewrite plagiarized fragments, and I'll ask for prose second opinion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Piotrus, I ran into this more or less by accident. I'm sorry that your time was wasted--but maybe it wasn't all wasted: I certainly appreciate your good efforts here and who knows, something may yet come out of this. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)