Talk:Stanisław Lem/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Reassessment
GA Reassessment
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
- b (MoS):
There are a large number of ELs - shoudl only be used when they are going to significantly add to understanding fo subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)- I've removed many of them; they could probably all go but I left a few that looked like the might be useful for further expansion. Mike Christie (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I took out a dead link and the two subpages from his official website. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
2 references and one EL are dead links - all have been tagged.
There is a mixture of bare urls and citations using a template. It is preferable to use a template for consistency. Some of the references, #5 & #8 for instance are the same source so should be combined, using a reference name. The Themes section has a long standing call for more citations with which I agree. All statements about themes should be referenced appropriately to critical commentaries, otherwise they are WP:OR Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) THis point is tsill outstanding. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- b (citations to reliable sources):
One of the deadlinks was to a netscape personal page, not RS Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- The only deadlink I saw was in the ELs, and I've removed that. Mike Christie (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes other editors have been working on the article since thereview. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its scope.
- a (major aspects):
- b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- OK, on hold for seven days for the above matters to be fixed. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK - I am happy to confirm the status as a Good Article, thanks for your hard work. I would suggest that if you want to take this article any further, e.g. to WP:FAC you get a WP:Peer review. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- I think I was able to fix all the issues save for the most time consuming, improving the referencing in the themes section. It would be nice if there were other editors interested in working on that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mike, I think we may disagree on what constitutes valid external links. I restored the ones you removed - they seem to be reliable, may be useful to our readers, and could help future editors expand the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've no problem with the restoration of the links. Perhaps I was a bit too keen to remove them, but I think a good general rule is that if an external link is good enough for a links section, then its material can be incorporated into the article -- and then you can dispense with the link, as you have it as a reference. That doesn't always work, of course. Anyway, no objections to putting them back. Plus if I'm going to take that attitude I really ought to be willing to add in the material myself! Mike Christie (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do share your sentiment; but since the links are not used as references, they should stay till they are (now if any are used as refs, then I am sorry and feel free to remove them). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK but the lack of referencing is important as is the inconsistency in formatting of the citations. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do share your sentiment; but since the links are not used as references, they should stay till they are (now if any are used as refs, then I am sorry and feel free to remove them). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've no problem with the restoration of the links. Perhaps I was a bit too keen to remove them, but I think a good general rule is that if an external link is good enough for a links section, then its material can be incorporated into the article -- and then you can dispense with the link, as you have it as a reference. That doesn't always work, of course. Anyway, no objections to putting them back. Plus if I'm going to take that attitude I really ought to be willing to add in the material myself! Mike Christie (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mike, I think we may disagree on what constitutes valid external links. I restored the ones you removed - they seem to be reliable, may be useful to our readers, and could help future editors expand the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)