Talk:Rudolf Berthold/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be starting this review in about 24 hours. Just FYI! auntieruth (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Reviewer's comments: Overall, this is a very good article. I've "edited" out some of the puffery, which falls under item 4. We really try not to words that could be construed as biased. Please read through and see if my minor copy edits are satisfactory to you, and let me know. auntieruth (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I went over the minor corrections you made. They are pretty fair. I see where I was unconsciously reflecting bias from the sources. I look forward to the review.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed it now, but if you're going to take it further, please review your text and make sure that you present him in a balanced way. Also, I think the fiar use rationale is okay on that one image, but before it goes further, one of the image experts needs to make a final eval. auntieruth (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]