Jump to content

Talk:Drexel 4257/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 13:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

I'm sorry for the delay. I'm now reviewing the article at this very moment, comments will follow. Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a very quick read of the article and it appears to be at or about GA-level, but I've not checked any references or copyright statuses, so I'm going to carry out a full review. This means I'm going to work my way the article starting at the Historical context section and finishing with the WP:Lead and note any "problems" that I find here.

  • Historical context -
  • General and physical description -
  • This section appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.
  • Dating -
  • This section appears to be compliant.
  • Provenance -
  • This section appears to be compliant.
  • Organization -

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Otherwise, this section was OK.
  • Handwriting -
  • Politics -

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This section appears to be compliant.
  • Topical or literary content -
  • This section appears to be compliant.
  • Musical content and style -
  • Significance -
  • This section appears to be compliant.
  • List of songs & List of songs -
  • OK.

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quite a good summary/introduction, so compliant with WP:WIAGA.
  • Scope.
The General and physical description contains a lot of detail and its all verifiable via citations, so I've marked its fully compliant. However, there is a picture of the book in the infobox and its bound with what appears to be leather and/or buckram bindings. There is no comment on this, for instance is it known when and by whom this was done; nor on the size of the folios, instance 10 by 8 (inches) (yes, this is unlikely since the images show a folio that is roughly 2:1 on height:width), foolscap, etc? Pyrotec (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately left this out because it would be original research. But I had an idea: If I get a picture of the binding date/binder's statement and upload it to Commons, then I can comment on it, right? -- kosboot (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be wrong of me to ask for information that would be OR. You can comment on information that is in the public domain. Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've now added it. - kosboot (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


An informative and well researched article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
    Yes, and all taken by the nominator
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I have no hesitation in awarding this article GA-status. I think that it has the makings of a WP:FAC, but I would draw attention to my comments above, i.e. "there is a picture of the book in the infobox and its bound with what appears to be leather and/or buckram bindings. There is no comment on this, for instance is it known when and by whom this was done; nor on the size of the folios, instance 10 by 8 (inches) (yes, this is unlikely since the images show a folio that is roughly 2:1 on height:width), foolscap, etc?". At GA, this is at best a minor uncertainty, and I've discounted it but I strongly suspect that it would be needed at FA. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]