Talk:The Rage Against God/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The passing review has been declared invalid so I will conduct a reassessment to see if it meets the good article criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Spot checks check out. Not sure of the relevence of "in both left- and right-leaning media publications" though. I feel it needs justification (a reference) to include otherwise it comes off as original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I am a little concerned about the length of the plot section. It is also overly detailed (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Criticism and praise is included.

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):

   The rational for File:The Rage Against God - American Cover.jpg says it is to "To illustrate the American version of the book", but this is not supported by the text and does not seem to provide any extra educational value (see Wikipedia:NFCC#8). The captions under two of the other pictures need to be written to better relate to the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A few questions. I am willing to seek a second opinion on any if you feel strongly about them AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to do the reassessment. To address the problem areas:

Re: 2: Perhaps "was reviewed extensively on both sides of the Atlantic"?

Re: 3: You are right, the synopsis is 1,200 words but WP:MoS indicates 900 as usually being sufficient. I'll have a go at paring back the material and summarizing appropriately those points gone into in what might be excessive detail.

Re: 6: a) Perhaps the American cover can be put in the release details section (but this is hardly critical and perhaps the best solution would be to delete it from the article) b) I'll have a go at rewriting the captions you flag.

I should be able to get round to doing the above in the next 24 hours. Regards, Jprw (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will re-pass it now AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)