Talk:Further Adventures of Lad/GA1

GA Review

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

This is my first review, so I will definitely ask for a second opinion before pass/fail, and the article on hold until then. That said, here are a few of my observations.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   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:

Comments:

Prose and MoS

1. The phrase, " and felt Lad as unbelievable", in the lead section, makes little sense. Possibly you meant, "felt Lad was unbelievable"?
2. Under The Coming of Lad, the statement, The couple, needs clarification. What couple?
3. Under In Strange Company, the phrase, Lad playful teases a bear, needs correction.
4. Under The Guard, the phrase, Her father makes her help him in her work, does not make sense.
5. This sentence, under Development and publication, does not follow: Terhune reported that he received hundreds of letters from fans asking him to publish more stories about Lad, and to have had over 1,700 people visit Lad's grave at Sunnybank.

#Also, there are multiple red links which should be corrected.

Additional

1. I would suggest adding a "See Also" section. Not necessary perhaps, but it appears that there would be plenty of applicable links.

Conclusion

I will place it on hold for a second opinion from a more experienced editor, and time for the comments to be addressed.

Reviewer: PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the first five. Please clarify "red links which should be corrected"? I've removed two, but the remaining three all fall well under WP:REDLINK as articles likely to be created in the future, as they are all notable topics. I'll decline to add a see also, as I see no necessary applicable links for one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about red links. My own personal preference is no red links, but that doesn't affect the review. Other than that, I do not have any problems with it, but I'm still waiting for another opinion. Like I said, this is my first review, so I'm sure I'm not doing things exactly correctly, but I'm trying to be bold and get a feel for the process. Outside of GA criteria, I can tell you've done a lot of work on the article and it looks really good. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Worth an on hold, perhaps, but I don't think that the errors are particularly egregious. I've given it an additional copyedit and corrected some quirks, so I think that it should be passed. The redlinks are compliant and definitely creatable in the future. Good job to both of you, AnmaFinotera and PrincessofLlyr. bibliomaniac15 03:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the second opinion. I have passed it now. If you want to check and make sure I do that correctly that might be a good idea! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)