Talk:Igor Panarin/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has met the requirements, and is now a good article.

• The article includes a large number of reliable citations, which are well placed within the article.
• The article is accurate, and there are very little grammatical errors. Those that I found, I corrected.
• There are relevant pictures, with good captions, but there are not too many pictures
• It meets the requirements for Manual of style
  • The lead section is a very good summary and introduction to the article
  • The layout of the article fits the Wikipedia criteria
  • It has used an acceptable amount of jargon, and has done well at avoiding the words to avoid
• The article is broad enough, and addresses the main aspects of the topic, but doesn't go into too much detail
• This article is suitable unbiased. It includes suitable arguments from both sides.
• It is my opinion that the article is stable enough

However, no article is perfect, and I do have some suggestions for improving the article.

• Wikipedia policy prefers that there isn't a criticism section, although many good article do include one, it would be preferable if the information in the criticism section was spread through the appropriate sections of the article.
• If the criticism section is to stay, the head of the section needs a source
• When I went through it, I found very few grammatical errors, and those I did find I fixed, but I recommend that someone who has been involved in the article do an extra thorough check.
• It would be nice to have a pronunciation guide in the lead section, using the International Phonetic Alphabet.

Keep up the good work! --Sauronjim (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I tried to address some of your recommendations by adding pronunciation for his name, and references for the head of the "Criticism" section. The remaining issues are the possiblle grammar errors which could best be checked by a native English speaker (I'm a Bulgarian) and the very presence of the "Criticism" section. I find it very difficult if not impossible to spread the latter through the respective relevant sections. At best, this can be done just for 10-20% of it. The rest of the critics is too broad in scope (most just applying his prediction to his own country) so I think that their best place is in a separate section as they are now. (Just saw that the ultimate authority here - the Wikipedia founder J. Wales - thinks that in many cases the "Criticism" section is necessary and I think that this is just one of these cases.) Лъчезар (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If the criticism section can't be moved, then that's fine. There are a number of other good articles and even featured articles which contain a cricism section, which is why I chose to overlook this. Probably one of the most notable of these is Microsoft. --Sauronjim (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)