Talk:Pulvermacher's chain
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Spinningspark in topic GA Review
 | Pulvermacher's chain has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 7, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Pulvermacher's chain battery was used in experiments by dentists in an attempt to anaesthetise patients with electric shocks? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Pulvermacher's chain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thankyou. I am ready and waiting. SpinningSpark 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for the delay, I have five GAN reviews undergo (with several On Hold) including this one. This candidate article looks to be at or about GA-level and I don't see many "problems", so my review will be short. Pyrotec (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Overall summary
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive and interesting article on a now obscure item of late 19th century "medical" apparatus.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
The article is well referenced, and illustrated, and has good supporting links in the Further reading and External links sections. I'm pleased to be able to state that I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a interesting GA. Pyrotec (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- And thank you for taking the time and trouble of reviewing. SpinningSpark 14:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)