Talk:Rhinogradentia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 07:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: What a weird and odd topic ! I would have expected this to be a fictional character within a larger fictional book, sort of like Tolkien, but the fact that it is just randomly thought up by this guy is really interesting. The writing style is quite good, and especially for such a strange topic helps introduce the reader to it gradually. I like how the introduction is styled, followed immediately by the "Background" section, which both give the reader some contextual grounding before going on into more depth in the later parts of the article. There are a couple of longer quotes that could be trimmed in size or paraphrased, but the writing style is good enough to be good article quality.

2. Verifiable?: Every fact is well cited individually which is great. As an aside I like that the article also has the Publication history of the related works, though not related to accuracy of the article content body text, it helps future researchers find, and confirm, more information should they wish to do so at a later date.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is thorough and it accomplishes this mainly through the background section as described above, but also most importantly with the Legacy section, which points out the impact the hoax phenomenon has had and continues to have even after the death of its author. I would suggest, however, to expand the intro section with a bit more from the Legacy section, but that is for further improvement. It is good enough for good article, just a suggestion to improve it even more.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article is written in a neutral tone with non agenda or point of view pushed upon the reader.

5. Stable? Edit history stable aside for several months now. Talk page history shows helpful collaboration and friendly updates.

6. Images?: Three images used in the article, all hosted on Wikimedia Commons, all with appropriate licensing on their image pages over there.

Most odd subject. But important to Wikipedia as related to one of the best known biological hoaxes and scientific jokes, as the article states. And therefore also due to its further impacat both on science, fortunately or unfortunately I suppose, and on society more generally. Thank you for improving this article on this scientific or rather hoax scientific topic. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Thanks very much for the review and feedback, which makes sense -- I'll likely incorporate it in the near future. I came across the topic because I was looking into false entries in encyclopedias and came across it in a list of fictitious entries. I love that people are still celebrating it and falling for it. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, and good luck with the further improvements ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)