Talk:Billy Budd/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This review may take a day or two to complete. When finished, I will claim it for points in the 2019 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The plot summary needs to be re-worked. It contains several quotes that don't add understanding.

The "scrapings" of Billy Budd lie in the 351 leaves..." This is poetic, but overly-flowery for an encyclopedia article.

"this manuscript has been described as "chaotic,"" by whom?

with a bewildering array" - who finds it to be so?

"Weaver was astonished to find" - is his reaction notable and documented? Why not just say he found it?

"an unknown prose work entitled Billy Budd" - we're almost 1500 words into an article about Billy Budd. This is a weak attempt to build suspense.

"would later be described as "hastily transcribed"" - by whom?

", strictly speaking," - not encyclopedic.

"what is now considered the correct" - when, and by whom?

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
There are six citation needed templates in the Adaptations section. These need to be addressed.

"named after the book by Thomas Paine" - this needs a citation.

" may be considered essentially the same text." - and it might not? This isn't sourced.

C. It contains no original research:
The "ambiguity" in the final three chapters needs to be sourced. "turn the facts that the reader learned from the story upside down" seems particularly out of place.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig returned a couple high returns, but they appear to false positives that used this article as their main source of information.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Is the actor in the Broadway image identifiable?
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This one has some significant issues I'd like to see addressed before I finish the review. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Failing due to a lack of response. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]