Jump to content

Talk:Wild Pilgrimage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wild Pilgrimage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruce1ee (talk · contribs) 14:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this nomination – I'll follow up here with my findings in the next couple of days. —Bruce1eetalk 14:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a first pass through the article and a little copyediting. Before I start the review, I do have one query: the last sentence of the first paragraph in the "Style and analysis" section ("At the same time, Spiegelman writes, the images") – that doesn't look complete, did you accidentally truncate the sentence? —Bruce1eetalk 15:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the edit history, and it looks like I forgot to add whatever it was I'd intended right from the start. I'm not sure what I'd intended, but I think I've filled it out with something appropriate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting and nicely written article, but please have a look at my comments below. I don't have access to two of the three sources, so I've assumed good faith. —Bruce1eetalk 08:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
  • Background
  • Style and analysis
  • Reception?

Checklist

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. No Close paraphrasing/copyright violations found.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I've assumed good faith for two offline sources: Spiegelman and Beronä.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images appear to be correctly tagged; non-free image has a valid FUR.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Promoted to GA.