Talk:Thinis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I see this article has waited quite a while for a review. I have looked it over thoroughly and below is my review template for this article. TimonyCrickets (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: TimonyCrickets (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The information in this article is quite informative and obviously well researched. I have had the opportunity to check out a number of the books referenced and the information is accurate. However, there are a few issues with the writing itself.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There are a number of issues with the flow of information in the article. There are many paragraphs which are only a single sentence. For example, in the "Name and location" section there are 5 paragraphs made up of 8 sentences. While this does get some of the information across, the structure is choppy and hard to follow. Additionally some sentences are quite long and may even be considered "run on". A good example is the opening sentence in the Lead.

   B. MoS compliance:

   As with the prose section above, I believe there are some manual of style issues, especially pertaining to punctuation. There are a number of areas where commas are used which make sentences quite choppy and awkward to follow. A thorough copy editing and reworking of some of the sentence and paragraphs should clear this up. As a note, much of the consistency in the article is very good! The issues I have are purely with the English.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Excellent use of references. I have checked out many of the books used in the article and the facts check out nicely. Well done.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   This article is a great example of a well researched and well cited topic.

   C. No original research:

   I cannot find even one instance where original research seems to be an issue.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The article, while well researched, reads a bit like a bulleted list of important facts. To while the major aspects of the topic are covered, there is a lack of supporting discussion of those facts to help it read like an encyclopedic article.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am overall very pleased with the article and certainly think it holds a great amount of well researched information. However, in order to be considered for Good Article status I am afraid the prose, Manual of Style compliance and coverage issues will need to be updated in order to help it read a little less choppy, and a bit more like an encyclopedic article.

This article has been inactive for more than 7 days with no changes according to the review provided. This article will be failed in the nomination and removed from the Good Article nomination list, but can be readded at a later date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimonyCrickets (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)