Talk:Philip J. Cohen/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 16:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll review this article later today. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Make that tomorrow. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is it well-written?
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- Is it neutral?
- Is it stable?
- Is it illustrated?
- Peacemaker67, I can't help but wonder why the section about his book is longer, much longer, than the actual biography section? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jonas. Basically, it is because it is the thing he is most notable for. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, okay I see what you mean. I think I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this one. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've added the 2nd opinion syntax to the GAN template. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, okay I see what you mean. I think I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this one. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jonas. Basically, it is because it is the thing he is most notable for. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, I can't help but wonder why the section about his book is longer, much longer, than the actual biography section? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
If the section on the book is much larger than the biographical part, then there is a good case for the page to be split. See Wikipedia:Splitting: "If [...] a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles." Half of the biographical information comes from a footnote in an article, and was presumably provided by PJC himself; this makes it hard to pass as a GA. EddieHugh (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Eddie. That's useful feedback. Jonas, I'm happy for you to fail this, I may then split the article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's out of balance. Let me take another look. auntieruth (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- certainly it's significantly longer than the biography, but that withstanding, I'd leave it as is. Instead, it might be useful to have the article about the book itself, and the information on the author as a section. I had only one quibble: in the US, people don't read for a Bachelors, they either earn or receive.
- Thanks Ruth, that's a good idea, and cheers for the "read" tip. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Failed per comments above. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Ruth, that's a good idea, and cheers for the "read" tip. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- certainly it's significantly longer than the biography, but that withstanding, I'd leave it as is. Instead, it might be useful to have the article about the book itself, and the information on the author as a section. I had only one quibble: in the US, people don't read for a Bachelors, they either earn or receive.