Talk:Hayao Miyazaki/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 10:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Just a thought: the sourcing style seems unusual for Wikipedia articles, with separate notes and sources. For most articles here, footnotes directly link to the sources, rather than the notes just mentioning authors. Otherwise, each statement is sourced (important as the article is a BLP), no copyright problems detected, the prose is well-written and properly sectioned (though perhaps, because the section is rather short, the "personal life" section could be merged to one of the sections above it). This is almost a pass, would just like to receive a response regarding my concerns. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for your comments! I agree that the sourcing style is uncommon, but it has been used before—in particular, I borrowed it from Knight Lore and Underwurlde. It's helpful when using mostly print material, but let me know if it's a significant concern. – Rhain ☔ 11:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhain: For one, I think it could be a problem for mobile readers, as that would be another section they would have to read, when they could have easily seen the source from the start. Just convert the sourcing to a more traditional style and this is an easy pass. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Considering the referencing style is also in use on an article which has undergone a scrupulous featured article review, and (to my knowledge) there is no guideline regarding a requirement to stick to the "traditional style", I personally feel as though a complete change is unnecessary. The concept of the style is actually used on several articles (see refs #55–64 of Satoru Iwata, or #95–97 of Donald Trump, for example)—this article just uses it for every reference instead, as several are print sources. It would certainly be no easy task to completely convert the sourcing style, either. – Rhain ☔ 12:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I see. If that's the case then I'm happy to say that this is a pass given that there are no other problems with the article. However, if you wish to nominate the article for FA status, I would suggest that you at least make the citations more readable, as that would be a plus should a FAN ever take place. The article is already well-written and it would easily pass a FAN with little work. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Thank you! I value your advice, and appreciate your time. – Rhain ☔ 12:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I see. If that's the case then I'm happy to say that this is a pass given that there are no other problems with the article. However, if you wish to nominate the article for FA status, I would suggest that you at least make the citations more readable, as that would be a plus should a FAN ever take place. The article is already well-written and it would easily pass a FAN with little work. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Considering the referencing style is also in use on an article which has undergone a scrupulous featured article review, and (to my knowledge) there is no guideline regarding a requirement to stick to the "traditional style", I personally feel as though a complete change is unnecessary. The concept of the style is actually used on several articles (see refs #55–64 of Satoru Iwata, or #95–97 of Donald Trump, for example)—this article just uses it for every reference instead, as several are print sources. It would certainly be no easy task to completely convert the sourcing style, either. – Rhain ☔ 12:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhain: For one, I think it could be a problem for mobile readers, as that would be another section they would have to read, when they could have easily seen the source from the start. Just convert the sourcing to a more traditional style and this is an easy pass. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)