Talk:Sorley MacLean/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Lingzhi2 (talk · contribs) 10:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been waiting a long time. I'll get to this one in a week or so. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the nominator is no longer active, but I'm willing to take over and make any changes necessary. Thank you! Zerach (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@זָרַח: Sounds good.... For starters, I think you need to follow the advice at User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. I see many errors of different kinds... Some are less important than others, e.g., the "Missing ISBN" and "Missing OCLC" almost certainly should be repaired, but I am not sure if ISSNs are considered as important.. there are "Cite journal requires |journal="..."Check |url= value", etc. If you have questions, please ask. I am happy to work with you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using your tool, I've fixed all the citation errors, and added issns and isbns to all journal/book citations respectively. Zerach (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #1 I like this article very much. The vast majority of it is well-written and flows well. Having been a Wikipedia for more than an decade (off and on) however, the nice writing is what makes me feel a bit afraiad. I've seen many cases of close paraphrase, copyvio etc in past years. I'll try to check for that in the next few days. Meanwhile, the only bit that completely lost me "put the Cullin on the market". I have no idea what a Cullin is (aside from a surname, I think.. Cullen anyhow); it sounds like an ancestral property of some sorts? More later...
Comment #2 still some errors in Notes and Citations etc., esp. missing ISBNs which is a no-no. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment #1: Almost all the sources are online and Earwig works with online PDFs. I've extensively run through all the matching websites and mostly it's quotes and titles. There were some instances where the phrasing was similar (probably coincidence) and I tweaked them.
- Comment #2: Could you point out which sources are the problem? I just double-checked to make sure all book sources had ISBNs. Zerach (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was unexpectedly busy with another article... as for reference errors, if you add the script I mentioned above, User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck, it will show you some errors and warnings. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ..and you can find data at WorldCat, usually, e.g.:
I am satisfied that his article meets the requirements of WP:WIAGA. PASS GA nomination ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]