Talk:Jack and Jill/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll review this article shortly! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it's an interesting article with lots of potential but it would be improved by adding more information and avoiding the passive voice.
- review
- "The rhyme is known to date back to at least the 18th century and exists with different numbers and variations of additional verses" - The rhyme dates back at least to the 18th century ..."? - who knows it? Per WP:WEASELWORDS.
Done - I took out the redundancy.--SabreBD (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Jack & Jill in the act of tumbling down, according to William Wallace Denslow" - do you mean as illustrated by?
Done
- "It has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 10266." - what is the importance of this?
- The Round index number is the standard way of cataloguing a folk song, so basically it establishes that it is a unique song. It would take a long time (and be rather repetitive) to explain this for every nursery rhyme (or folk song) on Wikipedia. Readers can find about this by clinking on the link.--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- "The first and most commonly repeated verse is ... " explain who said it is first, when, etc.
- That is in the meanings and origins section.--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- too much use of the passive voice.
- e.g. "The rhyming of "water" with "after" has been taken to suggest that the first verse may date from the first ..." all of these instances should say who says this.
- I added the Opie's names. Not sure what the other instances are: if its is explanations about Charles I and Louis XIV, then no one knows who first suggested those explanations.--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Under "Interpretation" - those should be complete sentences.
Done--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- "However, the woodcut that accompanied the first recorded version of the rhyme " - what was this? who recorded it?
- Again, that information is in the origins section.--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- In general, rather than brief sentences in the passive voice, the article would be improved by providing more information.
- What sort of information do you have in mind?--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
(I may add more later.) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Reply - ok, just a few things
- "several variations. Several theories" - could you vary the wording?
Done--SabreBD (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- "It has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 10266" - you could put a short explanation in as you gave above. Especially in such a short article, the reader shouldn't have to do a lot of clicking especially in the lede.
Done - I put a brief addition in the lead and then a fuller one in the text with a citation.--SabreBD (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- reply
- "classifies the song as 10266" - this means it's the 10266 most frequently mentioned, or what?
- also, could you just add a few more sentences to the lede per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."
MathewTownsend (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
- B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Provides references to all sources:
- B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Provides references to all sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Main aspects are addressed:
- B. Remains focused:
- A. Main aspects are addressed:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- 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:
- Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail: