Talk:John Davis Long/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Mark Miller in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Mark Miller (talk · contribs) 01:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research: [2]
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[3]
- reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[4]
- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[5] and
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [6]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [7]
- media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[8]
Done
Done
Done
Done
Review notes
edit- References
- "History". Zadoc Long Free Library. Retrieved 2013-03-18 - This is simply not an acceptable, reliable source for the claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are the first reviewer I have encountered that did not consider such an item of information authoritative when given on the relevant organization's own web site. Magic♪piano 20:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia uses third-party sources for claims such as charitable contributions of historic figures. This source is the library's "About Us" section. Wikipedia allows the use of this source for claims about the subject itself on the article about the subject however, sourcing claims about other subjects must be independent of both the library itself and the subject of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously I am in no hurry here but a good article would use a reference such as this book source that contains more details about the donation.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- This seems to me like a fairly fine distinction, but I'm not going to belabor the point. I've changed the citation. Magic♪piano 18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are the first reviewer I have encountered that did not consider such an item of information authoritative when given on the relevant organization's own web site. Magic♪piano 20:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- "DANFS entry for USS Long". United States Navy. Retrieved 2013-03-18 - The page is no longer available.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Added an archive link. Magic♪piano 20:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- That link is still unable to display a page.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Here is an archive link to the information. The internet site is the host but the source is the original publisher that they only record.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting, given that the page was accessible through the archive when I set it up... I've found the current location for the DANFS link. Magic♪piano 18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Added an archive link. Magic♪piano 20:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- "History". Zadoc Long Free Library. Retrieved 2013-03-18 - This is simply not an acceptable, reliable source for the claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Neutrality
- "..a period that notably included the primarily naval Spanish–American War". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Words that may introduce bias. notably should be removed and that should read: "..a period that included the Spanish–American War..."
Done by reviewer. Is this acceptable to nominator?
- This is fine. Magic♪piano 18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- "...which were relatively undistinguished". Editorializing. Adding opinion of either the editor or the author. This must be removed or reworded to be the claim of the author with attribution by name in the text with the reference.
- I've changed "undistinguished" to "uneventful", which is the word used in the source, and attributed it to the author. Magic♪piano 18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- "..,and in a politically calculated move" Editorializing. Adding opinion of either the editor or the author. This must be removed or reworded to be the claim of the author with attribution by name in the text with the reference.
- "..a period that notably included the primarily naval Spanish–American War". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Words that may introduce bias. notably should be removed and that should read: "..a period that included the Spanish–American War..."
Break
I'll return shortly to add a few more notes--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I just need to check a few things and I will be ready to list as GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Listed as GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
References
edit- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.
- ^ Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."
- ^ Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.
- ^ The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video or audio files, are also covered by the "images" criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then such images should be provided.