Talk:Ercole Manfredi/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 20:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is not good, I made a few copy-edits[2] but the whole article could do with a thorough copy-edit to render it into good plain English.

   The lead does not thoroughly summarise the article, please see and apply WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "Ercole Manfredi: One of the great architects of Bangkok (1883–1973)" could do with an ISBN

   Sources appear to be RS

   The sources that I could checkn supported the cited statements. Assume good faith for the others.

   No evidence of WP:OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage, without unnecessary trivia.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

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 for a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• I went through the article text, revising the lead and rearranging the Architecture section into proper prose while converting the section's last paragraph (and the Painting section) to a list. Is this an improvement, or should I enlist further help from the Copyeditors' Guild? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to convert the lists to prose, it still needs a copy-edit, solitary sentences need consolidating into paragraphs. still much work to be done. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to convert the lists to prose and still keep them readable; information from the sources is pretty limited. I've placed a request at the Copy Editors' Guild, but given the backlog there it might take some time. Probably this could be closed first; I'll renominate after the required work's done. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, that is probably the best course. You could also ask for help at the projects whose banners are on the talk page. I would also recommend a peer review before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.