Talk:Nouvelles Extraordinaires de Divers Endroits/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This is fairly well written but there are a few clumsy and confusing phrases, which I shall point out below.

   The size of the paper; (usually 11.6 by 19.4 by 12.3 cm to 18.8 cm) This makes no sense at all. "11.6 by 19.4 by 12.3 cm" is one dimension too many for a two dimensional object. Looking at the French source this suggests that this should read "from 11.6 by 19.4 cm to 12.3 by 18.8 cm" (de 11,6 par 19,4 cm à 12,3 par 18,8 cm) This is very small, smaller than a paperback novel, yet the image at full resolution is rather larger. Is theer any chance of another confirmation of the rather small size?

   OK, I recast this section and used the {{convert}} template, and studying the sources.

   Interestingly, the newspaper praised the changes in Poland (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) over the changes in France, criticizing violence in France, and comparing them to the peaceful transformation in Poland. rather ungrammatical and appears to convey a POV

   Rewrote in a clearer more neutral tone.

   I made a number of copy edits for clarity, grammar and style

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All online references check out and appear to be RS, I assume good faith for off line sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article as it stands is rather slender. How was the newspaper printed, how was it distributed, what major events were there in the 150 year history of the newspaper? How much did it cost to buy?

   Found stuff about the print style, subscriptions, ect and added it to the article.

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/Fail:

   On hold for seven days, whilst the issues above are addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

   OK, a small but well formed article. I found it interesting and am happy to list it as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments (the more the merrier) and the copyedits (ditto!). While writing this article, I think I exhausted all the sources I was able to locate via Google Book and Scholar (plus one Polish source that I happened to chance on that is not indexed online). As such, I am afraid I cannot offer a second verification for size, nor more information on any kind (the sources I used also included searchable academic journals). I tried my best to include all relevant information from those sources (I was too surprised how much basic information is simply not out there). If you know of any sources I might have missed (I am pretty sure I searched using all alt names), do let me know, and I'll gladly review them.

Regarding the transformation sentence, I am not a native speaker - the sentence reads neutrally and well written to me, but please, don't hesitate to rewrite it if you think you can fix it.

I feel rather bad that I cannot improve the article further. Unfortunately, I have exhausted available sources I know of (if you cannot fix the clumsy sentence, I will see if I can ask some native speaker to look at it - I am afraid that is all I can do at this point). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)