Talk:Bookwheel/GA1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by 23W in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's my review:
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
editGave this a few copy edits. Here are my comments:
- The two alternative names are significant enough to be in boldface, per WP:BOLDTITLE.
- Expand the lead a little to include information about the inventor, the year it was invented, etc.
- "Unnecessarily elaborate": not sure if that's neutral.
- Per WP:MINREF, include a citation after the direct quotation after "... tormented by gout".
- Would recommend using {{Commons category}} instead of having the gallery, per WP:IG.
- dupdet didn't turn up anything, so that's good.
Short and sweet: nice work. On hold for a fortnight. 23W 02:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Made edits per your suggestions, thanks for your review! The only one I did not make was the "unnecessarily elaborate" change, as it is my understanding that that is a well-attested and uncontroversial claim about the bookwheel. See for instance this page which discusses "design for showmanship's sake" with additional sourced statements. Geethree (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Geethree: I see. Changes look good, looks like I'll pass. 23W 01:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Made edits per your suggestions, thanks for your review! The only one I did not make was the "unnecessarily elaborate" change, as it is my understanding that that is a well-attested and uncontroversial claim about the bookwheel. See for instance this page which discusses "design for showmanship's sake" with additional sourced statements. Geethree (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)