Talk:A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs) 18:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments: Looking very good, thanks for your work on this. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

Thank you very much! I've made the suggested edits as listed below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In-depth comments:

• Links in the lede (and where they appear again): (1958|1958 in literature); (Travel|Travel literature).

done

• Background: References. The uncited statements incude their venturing to a place that no-one had visited for 50 years and the then unclimed peak in the Hindu Kush.

done.

• The book: "Contents"?

The contents are explained in "Structure"; have added "Chapter..." to clarify this.

Also inconsistent referencing; if you cite quotations from the book in structure chapters, then you should do so for the Illustrations and Preface.

done.

• Structure: A brief overview of the structure, perhaps something like "The book contains 20 chapters …" and any consistent features that they have?

added.

• Driving out; 5 The Dying Nomad: "Persia (present-day Iran)"

done.

• Journey; 8 Panjshir Valley: Only Panjshir is linked, but there is a previous instance of this that needs linking in Illustrations before it.

done.

• 19 Disaster at Lake: Use [sic] or {{sic}}.

I'd have thought that wasn't necessary in a chapter title (now that the word "Chapter" has been added).

• Inconsistent liking of nationalities, in Legacy Polish and Austrian are linked, but elsewhere English is not linked, for example.

added 2 links, labelled Wally Herbert as an English explorer.

• Legacy: Bryon should be linked straight to "Lord Byron"

done.

• References: Source should be Edition, since really all of the references are sources (i.e., a source of information referred to by a citation).

done.

• Made a few minor changes myself, but otherwise everything is fine and meets the GA criteria (as considered below). Therefore I pass the article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I encourage you to review an article yourself. And well-done on the work on the article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Good article criteria

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.	Fine.
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.	Fine.
	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).	Fully cited.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All points of the book are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine.
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.	Own work of nominator, and released under appropriate licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Cover image and images illustrating the contents of the book.
	7. Overall assessment.