Talk:Thomas Carlyle (Millais)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Carlyle (Millais)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Nominator: Sinopecynic (talk · contribs) at 20:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

I am afraid, but I'll have to quick-fail the article due to multiple reasons:

• Recommending to have the GOCE copy-edit the article. The prose does not meet the criteria of being "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct". We have many phrases which are unclear/difficult to understand. Example: "It may have been one Mrs. Anstruther, a friend of Carlyle's who visited Millais' home to see the portrait, telling him that it was ...", etc. There are a lot of blockquotes and other long quotations, some of which can easily be paraphrased in Wikipedia's voice.
• It has quite a few MOS issues. MOS:LEAD states that the lead section should be a summary of the article. We have a single sentenced lead that is never mentioned in the prose. We have MOS:SANDWICH issues, etc.
• Few of the direct quotations and text lacks a citation, when direct quotations should definitely have one. Few of the references lack an url-access date.

Overall, it will take a long time, or even a complete re-write of the article to fix these issues. So I am failing the nomination for now, but suggest you to keep working on these issues, and do renominate after they have been fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

General discussion

Hi! I'll review this article as a part of the June 2022 backlog drive. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or need clarification for any point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)