Talk:Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Eisfbnore (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
→
- Seems fine, I did a light copyedit for style and grammar; revert if you feel uneasy about it. 'Deludedly' does not appear in the dictionary, however.
- I've modified the sentence with "deludedly" - that word is in the OED, and isn't listed as archaic; sometimes adverbs formed from adjectives by adding -ly aren't in smaller dictionaries, but I've never met an adjective that couldn't be adverbialized. Sindinero (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your changes are good; I made one reversion (in the last section) where I felt that the participial (-ing) form does create a better flow and a tighter sentence. Sindinero (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Seems fine, I did a light copyedit for style and grammar; revert if you feel uneasy about it. 'Deludedly' does not appear in the dictionary, however.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- AGF for the off-line sources
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Stable
- 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:
→
- Could do with more information about copyright status, perhaps using {{Non-free media rationale}}; see here for a good example
- Since it was published in 1918, the cover might actually be public domain. I'll look into this and fix the licensing. Sindinero (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I've fixed this. From everything I've been able to understand, it is indeed in the public domain. If you prefer to be sure, we can wait a few days to see if anyone watching the licensing pages raises an objection, but as I understand it, all material published before 1923 is in the public domain. Sindinero (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since it was published in 1918, the cover might actually be public domain. I'll look into this and fix the licensing. Sindinero (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Could do with more information about copyright status, perhaps using {{Non-free media rationale}}; see here for a good example
- 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:
→
- Pass or Fail:
Eisfbnore talk 12:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I am passing it; congratulations with a good article! Eisfbnore talk 18:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)