Talk:David Macaulay/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

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):

   Needs large copyediting effort around organization needed. No major grammar issues but writing is not currently to standard (e.g. numerous 1 sentence paragraphs disconnected from other content)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Editorial effort needs to be made to bring attention to what is noteworthy and to place it in context of less noteworthy efforts.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Given other issues, sources were not looked at to evaluate any possible issues with NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Discussion

@Occono: Black & White blew my mind when I read it as a child. Happy to see this nominated. Will start review in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I actually wasn't even familiar with him, but I was just improving it after watching an LGR video about The Way Things Work CD-ROM and ended up being able to cite nearly everything on the page, so I felt motivated to nominate it just because I somehow ended up spending the day doing that. That confessed, I now want to help improve it further to get it to GA status if possible, and I plan to actually find his books now. Incidentally, the actions taken over GDPR regulations by some outlets are making it harder to source articles when you aren't American, I've discovered. I also don't have JSTOR and other database access now that I've left college, sadly.--occono (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Occono: So after reading through the article, I can tell you that it is a fair distance away from GA quality and cannot pass it at this time. As an example of a GA quality writer I can point you to Margaret Atwood a GA review I recently completed. I hope you take the time to improve it - given Macaulay's prominance I would hope the sourcing would be there. You mentioned issues as a European reviewer. Have you thought about exploring WP:LIBRARY and requesting access to sources that way? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, results noted. As my contributions were just finding references for what was already there (see the edit history) I'm happy that that part was reviewed well. I can try rewriting the article over the next few days to make it more readable and well-written.--occono (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Occono: Yes that was great. It seems like, however, more information needs to be brought into the article in order to make it complete to GA standards. Thanks again for your efforts here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)