Talk:Harrie Massey/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The review will be done shortly, AFAP by me. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Criteria[edit]
Good Article Status – Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review[edit]
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments and discussion[edit]
- The lead requires a slight rewrite to remove the 'influential' and the next sentence could be connected with the first as a single phrase. A little more expansion in the very first paragraph will do good.
- The info box must have at least two inline or full cites, specially rectifying the death and birth date.
- Don't think so. Galileo Galilei do not have so, neither many other GAs of similar fields. Inline cites provide better stability and at least two of them are expected in the infobox. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- WP:INFOBOXREF: References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material requires a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information doesn't also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Don't think so. Galileo Galilei do not have so, neither many other GAs of similar fields. Inline cites provide better stability and at least two of them are expected in the infobox. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Copyvio shows about 70% paraphrasing which must be reduced by a rewrite.
- royalcommission1851.org is dead and must be removed or replaced.
- The Collisions of Material Particles from cam.ac.uk must be updated of access date.
- Though images are not a criterion, an image or two in the early life and career and later life sections will be appreciated.
- Death could be better explained in a new section.
- Second paragraph of Second World War needs few more inline cites.
Result[edit]
The article passed the GA review to gain a Good Article status. Though I have a slight concern on the lack of cites in the info box, it does not pose a great threat for the article's gradation as GA. Some red links point towards future articles and an image of the person is appreciated in the article. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORDmy strength 11:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional notes[edit]
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.