Jump to content

Talk:James White (author)/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: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I made some minor copy-edits in the lead, but there are still a few problems.
    I think that digits less than ten such as 9 other novels, 2 of which would better as nine other novels, two of which. Twelve would be better than 12, I think. This would also introduce consistency with other numeral usage.
    White married Margaret Sarah Martin, another science fiction fan, in 1955 and the couple had three children. He became a science fiction fan in 1941 and co-wrote two fanzines... Could be re-cast so that the second sentence starts something like: He bame a fan of the genre...'
    However, the "Sector General" series is regarded as defining the genre of medical science fiction, and as "the most memorable crew of aliens ever created. Better would be ......and as introducing "the most memorable crew...
    Although narrowly missing four times in the most prestigious honors, ... Although narrowly missing winning would be better. 'honors? British English spelling should be used - honours.
    Critical appraisal: Michael Ashley commented that the setting of the television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is reminiscent of Sector General. That has already been said at the end of the Sector General section. Best to remove it from the Sector General section, I think.
    2 sentences removed as duplicated: " Resnick described the series' characters as "the most memorable crew of aliens ever created". Michael Ashley thinks the setting of the television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is reminiscent of Sector General." -Philcha (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The article is sufficiently referenced; refs #6, 13 and 40 are dead links, I have tagged them; other refs check out - all RS; no OR
    fixed with Internet Archive --Philcha (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The non fair use rational for the author could be improved, e.g. Because the subject is dead it is not possible to seek a fee alternative. A suitable caption would be good for this.
    Used, "Because the subject is dead it is not possible to seek a fee alternative", thanks for suggestion. --Philcha (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Green tickY[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days for improvements to be made. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, all good to go. Congratulations you have a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links checks: