Talk:Lego/GA2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
GA on Hold
- NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you!
| 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. | Prose is pretty good, at least good enough for good article quality at this point. But please go back over the article and fix short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs and two-sentence-long-paragraphs. Please either merge these into other paragraphs, or expand them. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Per WP:LEAD, please expand the lede intro sect, summarizing the entire article's contents, so it can function as a standalone summary of the article itself. Based on the size of the article, we're talking probably four (4) concise worded paragraphs. Also, as the lede intro sect should only summarize cited info present again later in the article, no need for cites in the lead sect itself. |
| 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. | Mostly okay except for cite needed tags, as noted, below. |
|
|
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). | Please go through and address any outstanding cite needed tags. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | There are some primary sources used but mostly for matter of fact info. More on that below. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Bit of an issue here with a missing sect. Need a Reception or Analysis or Commentary or Perception sect. There have been lots and lots of books that discuss the history of this topic and how it has been perceived by writers, over time. Need to have a sect as the last sect in the article about this. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Good here, with links to other sub topic articles. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Per comment, above, to have a sect with secondary source info on perception over time of the topic from secondary sources. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Please comment on the edit from 6 September 2015, I see it was a while ago, is the article stable now? Was there discussion and was this resolved amicably? |
| 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 check out okay upon image review, no issues here. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No problems here. |
|
7. Overall assessment. | GA on Hold, pending addressing recommended problem issues, above. |
- NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- GA on Hold, pending addressing recommended problem issues, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Not GA at this time
Unfortunately, there's been lack of substantive response to above, so this is marked as not GA at this time. Please do feel free to renominate after attempting to address above recommendations. Good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)