Talk:Abraham Goldfaden/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

   • I fixed one broken EL. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • There are a great number of unsourced paragraphs. It is possible that they can be sourced from the existing refereneces. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
     • I drew this all from the specified sources when I wrote it, but at the time it was not Wikipedia policy to footnote every individual fact, so I did not. I have no interest in trying to reassemble and re-research these sources: for example, Bercovici's book is available only in Yiddish (which I do not read) and Romanian (3 copies in the U.S., to my knowledge: I managed to borrow one from the University of Chicago, through Seattle Public Library, but doubt I could do so again). - Jmabel | Talk 01:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
   • OK, I am prepared to accept in good faith that the unsourced sections are supported by Bercovici as you have specified that it is the primary source. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • I note concerns about ref #15 [1] and ref #17 Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
     • Just for clarity: reference 17, Bercovici, is probably the best possible source on Goldfaden's time in Romania (or, really, on anything about 19th century Yiddish theater in Romania), but it seems only honest to report where other presumably decent sources disagree with him. I believe that Wikipedia policy is simply that we cite both for what they each say. - Jmabel | Talk 01:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
   • I accept that - as no-one has challenged any of the article on sourcing I will accept this in good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • Uncertain until article is fully referenced. Y Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
     • As I indicate in the references section, Bercovici is the primary source for the article. Please see my remarks above on why I am not likely to be able to re-research. If someone (probably in Romania, or who can read Yiddish and has access to a Yiddish copy) wants to work on this, I'd welcome it, but I don't see myself having the opportunity. - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
     • In fact, see my 6 October 2006 remark on just this. - Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • On hold for seven days whilst above concerns are dealt with. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

   I accept that this article was correctly sourced at the time of its promotion to GA status and the criteria suggest that only controversial statements need to be cited with in-line citations. I will confirm the status of this as a Good article, but would urge that editors work to find further sourcing as opportunities present themselves. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)