Talk:Seventy-Six (novel)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 23:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Prose is clear, well-written, consistent with MOS, and engaging. If you're taking this to FAC in future you might face stronger scrutiny--FA-level prose is my weak point--but I'm more than happy with it here.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Cited throughout, formatting is consistent with MOS. Reference list laid out perfectly.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Broad coverage, analysis, critique and history all addressed. Well-balanced mix of content, nothing covered to an undue extent. The only thing I would think to examine is that the "Reception" section seems entirely contemporary, although there are several more modern texts cited throughout (Insko 2012, Lease 1972). Do any of these offer anything which could be used to paint a modern picture of the book's reputation? I know there's cited mention of it being "generally unknown" so obviously we're not going to have a sweeping breadth of opinion but a quote or opinion from something in the 20th/21st century would go a long way.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No issues with neutrality, article is uncontroversial and any opinions listed are clearly attributed with appropriate weight given.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No stability issues; article new but unlikely to be controversial.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are both PD-US, and appropriately tagged as such. Both used well and are accompanied by alt text for accessibility.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Happy to pass this one as is, but do consider the point raised above. If you want to take this further, ping me on any future nomination and I can relay the same image/source reviews I've done for this review as well. Tremendous work on this article and on the topic as a whole. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review, Grapple X! I hear what you're saying about getting some modern perspectives in the Reception section. I'll work on adding that in before I take the article to FAN. I'll take you up on pinging you when I do. Thank you for offering to jump into that with the image and source reviews you've already done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources aren't there, they aren't there and that's fine, but I just wondered if those more modern scholars you were already citing had offered an opinion of the novel that you could throw in. Otherwise it's fine. Good work. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]