Talk:Herman Melville/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Alcmaeonid (talk · contribs) 11:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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):
  • The lede section is too long and contains too many biographical details, duplicated below. Needs telescoping.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. 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):
  6. Overall:

Start of assessment[edit]

Thanks for taking on this long article. I did the trim to the lead section which you requested and look forward to your next set of comments. CodexJustin (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Herman Melville:  Spintendo  08:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Information to be added or removed: Requesting a change to the first mention of Nathaniel Hawthrone in this Article (third paragraph). Not only is he listed only by last name / without a corresponding WikiLink, the sentence assumes that the reader has prior knowledge of Hawthrone and his relationship with Melville. However a clickable link and background on Hawthorne isnt listed till later in the article. Without context of his identity and their relationship a reader who is less familiar with the subject (such as myself) could easily be confused. Explanation of issue: If I was more knowledgeable on the subject I would re-word the sentence and properly introduce Hawrhorne, but I don't want to further dilute the article

Herenow44 (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Article has added a short addition on Hawthorne and Melville friendship. CodexJustin (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Argento Surfer's review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm taking over the review since the original reviewer has not edited in some time. Due to the length of the article, it may take some time for me to complete my notes.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Is there a reason for the empty See also section?
    Nice of you to pick up on this review. The See also section has not been edited since Sept 2015 and appears to have been kept as residual from use prior to that time. I am removing it for now unless this review determines it needs to be returned. CodexJustin (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    What's the inclusion criteria for the selected bibliography?
    This was inherited from a previous editor and it is selective and not complete. Other than verifying them as existing books on Melville, they do not appear to have an obvious systematic center and appear as a general and partial directory for further Melville reading. It can be abridged or expanded as needed. CodexJustin (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    My first instinct would be to limit it to works that have their own article, but I'll let you decide if that's a good criteria. I'll be ok with just about anything that isn't arbitrary. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Same thinking here. The section is meant as a supplement to the Sources section directly above it and it seems to be useful as long as it is not redundant to anything already listed in the Sources section. CodexJustin (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Arvin (1950) appears as a reference in different forms (15, 31, 72, 82, and 90). Given the lack of page numbers, is there a reason these are split?
Pulling it all together for consistency under cite #15 in current list. The old cite numbers are now shifted as a result of consolidating to the current cite number 15 for Arvin. CodexJustin (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. Ref 185 just has the url and title fields completed. Website, author's name, and access-date should be added.
Currently at cite #183, and I have added the author info and access date. CodexJustin (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    no concern
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig had one serious concern, but upon review it was due to book titles, common phrases, and shared quotes. No concern.
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    no concern
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    no concern
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Not a serious concern, but what's the red can in File:Herman Melville Headstone 1024.jpg? Am I missing its significance? Is there a version without it? Pinging uploader @Anthony22: for comment.
@Argento Surfer: Not hearing form Anthony22 regarding the tombstone marker image, which looks like a optional image since the article already has the newspaper announcement image for this. It can be deleted. There are now 2 versions the lead section, the short version I placed today and the one which you have already read. Let me know which version of the lead section you prefer, and the optional image of the tombstone can be deleted if the article looks better without it. CodexJustin (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  1. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: