GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 17:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review forthcoming. I made some minor copy edit to the article; feel free to revert anything you disagree with and we can discuss it as part of the review. This will be my first GA review, and I will request it to be checked. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Criterion

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Would appreciate a little prosework Checkeddone
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Two unreliable sources Checkedgood
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    No caption for image, but perhaps not needed. CheckedCaption requirement waved for infobox image of subject with no further details.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    With the other sources, there's only one unsourced statement. This should pass with a little additional work. CheckedPass

Review comments

[edit]
Prose

The article is generally well-written but there are a few small areas where I feel that the prose could be smoothed, tightened or clarified. (There are a couple additional prose issues I might raise after referencing is sorted, and some optional FA-level prose advice further down.)

Referencing & verifiability

Thanks for naming the references and using page numbers, this made it a lot easier for me!

Media

Other areas to improve

[edit]

Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might want to improve:

General discussion

[edit]

This should pass GA with a little additional work. I'm tagging the review as "on hold" for now. Please feel free to discuss if you have questions or disagree with the points I've raised. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one holdout is that statement from Jost. I understand you may need a few days to go through the sources for something suitable to replace it with. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the additional changes! Passed. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]