Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sadads ( talk) 20:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Hi, I generally do work with WP:Novels and Wikipedia:Novels/Military fiction task force. I hope I can help you in this review. My primary research outside of Wikipedia, involves History, Literature and Historical fiction. This is my first review, so please call on someone else to consult if you fell it is necessary. It may take me a couple of days to finish the review. reply

Bellow is My checklist and at the bottom I will comment on what should change. This is a work in progress, I will check off all of the major criteria

 DoneWell-written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

Factually accurate and verifiable:

 Done(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 Done(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;[2] and
 Done(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

{(done}}(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and - (This article approaches everything available in good sources)
 Done(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). - (Would suggest focusing to book pages, but fine as of now)

 DoneNeutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

 Done Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

✓ Pass Great review

References

Numbers 1, 2, 20 and 22 not sufficiently academic for Wikipedia. They are not what I would call trustworthy sources. Unless you can prove otherwise, you should remove these or find new sources.

Wary about number 9 or 10, not sure if I would call that trustworthy.

Please make sure to include all information in sources, esp. Publisher. Some do not include what the main publisher/publication the text is from. Try filling out the complete {{ cite web}} or {{ cite news}}

Content

Generally, I think the series should be separate pages or cut down a little here. You cannot adequately examine everything about the books within the scope of the author's article and the depth of the coverage right now appears to be too much. I think it should be split, or at reduced and refocused into another main page. See Patrick O'Brian, for detail.

  • I think eventually each book will have its own article. When I came to this article as a brand new editor last summer it was a stub and I had no idea how to structure it. As it stands now it's a bit of everything, but I hesitate to delete material that will get moved into other articles with time.
    • Adding to above: I've removed quite a lot of material and will create separate pages for each book and/or series, but that could take some time. Shall I redlink the books for now, or wait until each has its own page to link? Let me know if you think more should be cut. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Redlinking is a really good thing, sometimes it encourages the addition of more information by other authors when they realize just how many articles are missing. Also, do a thorough search or google search to make sure that no-one else has made one of the pages yet. And don't be afraid of deleting information; you can always get the removed text from a copy found under the history tab. Also, don't be afraid of copy pasting to a new stub, as long as the section identifies author and title. Sadads ( talk)

Also is their anymore biographical information or trend identifying information in any of the major reviews? Sadads ( talk) 04:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

    • Finally, my last complaint on the sources is the Ann Arbor site. The author of the page doesn't have any qualifications which suggest we should trust her. If she were published in a magazine or a newspaper, it would be easier to verify this. Is that author particularly reputable in some other realm? Sadads ( talk) 18:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Images

The images do not all appear to be very relevant to the author herself. Instead of including these, you should include book covers, which are directly relevant to the topic.


Finishing touches

I think this review has been productive so far, we are almost at a pass, to finish we need to ensure the following things:

  1. A few good and relevant illustrations, I suggest the author's picture and fair use of book covers
  1. Addressing the problem of the Ann Arbor site

Cool Good job, great review if you have any other questions, feel free to contact me Sadads ( talk) 22:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sharon_Kay_Penman/GA1&oldid=345102901"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE