Talk:Albany Pine Bush/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Think this is very interesting, though it needs some improving in the writing, which I think is very choppy. Otherwise it's fine. However I'm going to put it on hold until the writing's fixed.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- A. Prose quality:
- I hope I rectified this problem by making the prose less a series of factual statements and thereby increasing the flow. Please let me know if more needs to be done. Specific examples, if possible, would be welcome. And I'd like to take time to thank you for taking on this task and I hope I make this easy and quick for you!Camelbinky (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the changes you've made have been the combination of medium-sized sentences into larger sentences. I feel that that's unnecessary, given the lack of clarification regarding the exact shortcomings of the prose, and in many cases makes it harder to follow the text by combining tangentially-related sentences in a run-on manner. And the 20th century paragraph on the 1912 beautification of the city is now after the paragraph on Reverend Louis W. Parson in 1927. In my opinion, almost all of the changes since this review was posted should be reverted.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would say the problem with the prose was that it was too choppy, as the reviewer stated, it was too much a list of facts. I know the changes you, Gyrobo, have put in were to make the article more "encyclopedic" but really they did chop the flow up into statements instead of a flowing narrative. The article needs to tell a story and flow not like a bunch of individual statements. I'll leave it to the reviewer to clarify, but frankly Gyrobo, while you are good at spelling and grammar, I dont like that your edits cut up the flow of the narrative. And yes, to make things flow better I needed to move that paragraph from being in exact chronological order so it did not stick in the middle of two paragraphs that had more in common. This isnt a chronological timeline. Things must flow like a story. I hope you understand and this isnt coming off as rude.Camelbinky (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, I was just curious about your style. That makes sense. And we do need more information about where the article needs fixing.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've been reading over the narrative, and I really do stand by my earlier opinion. I don't see the previous structure as choppy, I see it as sentences feeding into each other, creating strategic pauses to improve readability. The longer a sentence is, the more mentally taxing it is. And that makes it harder to enjoy the content.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I went over the changes, they're very good, especially that part with the 1912 commission and the Reverend. What I meant by choppy is that there are many sentences which can be merged into longer sentences. If you want to create strategic pauses use comas, or colons, or semicolons when applicable. When you look at many articles in wikipedia they use longer sentences with more punctuation. I think this article has great potential, and if you merge some of your sentences I think it will get promoted. Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 02:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think I've got the "choppiness" taken care of... I hope! Please let me know if it still needs another run through. Thank you Bernstein.Camelbinky (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Its much better now. I'm going to promote it. I apologize if "choppy" wasn't clear enough. Best of luck. Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 03:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think I've got the "choppiness" taken care of... I hope! Please let me know if it still needs another run through. Thank you Bernstein.Camelbinky (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've been reading over the narrative, and I really do stand by my earlier opinion. I don't see the previous structure as choppy, I see it as sentences feeding into each other, creating strategic pauses to improve readability. The longer a sentence is, the more mentally taxing it is. And that makes it harder to enjoy the content.
- No, I was just curious about your style. That makes sense. And we do need more information about where the article needs fixing.
- Most of the changes you've made have been the combination of medium-sized sentences into larger sentences. I feel that that's unnecessary, given the lack of clarification regarding the exact shortcomings of the prose, and in many cases makes it harder to follow the text by combining tangentially-related sentences in a run-on manner. And the 20th century paragraph on the 1912 beautification of the city is now after the paragraph on Reverend Louis W. Parson in 1927. In my opinion, almost all of the changes since this review was posted should be reverted.
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- 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:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Reviewer: Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 20:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)