Talk:Bloody Knife/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 11:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll read through properly and begin the review later today. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've paused the review because of the close paraphrasing problem in a lot of this material. This can be fixed, but it'll need a bit of work. Let me know how you'd like to proceed, Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• There are some close-paraphrasing issues emerging:
• " Since he was of mixed blood and the Sioux were traditional enemies of the Arikara, he was often discriminated against and treated poorly by the other Sioux. Consequently, he grew a hatred for the Sioux tribe and a feud was started with a fellow Sioux named Gall." - the original is "He lived with the Sioux, who were traditional enemies of the Arikara, and was discriminated and against and treated as as an outcast due to his mixed blood. This resulted in a deep hatred for that tribe, and in particular one of his peers, Gall, with whom he developed a feud that endured for years."
• " When he was about fifteen, he and his mother left his father and the Sioux to return to the Arikara at an American Fur Company trading post called Fort Clark, which was located close to modern day Stanton, North Dakota, on the Upper Mississippi River." - original is "When Bloody Knife was about fifteen years old, his mother left her husband and returned to her people at Fort Clark, an American Fur Company trading post on the Upper Missouri near present day Stanton, North Dakota."
• Looking through, there are similar problems with most of the material cited from Thom Hatch and for Vandt de Logt; I haven't worked through the others, but there's quite a lot here to fix here already. I'll pause now to give a chance for folks to fix them. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• All clear. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• The captions don't need full-stops under the MOS, but this isn't a strict GA requirement. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Any update on the review? Been over a month and the nominee only edited once since. Secret ^account 22:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)