Talk:Ephemera/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 01:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. This is a very interesting topic for an article and I look forward to reading it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- FYI - I may not have time to continue the review until Sunday, but will complete it then. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine. Gives time to wrap up outstanding enquires. DMT Biscuit (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- This article has serious prose issues that need attention. It is filled with vague statements and confusing phrases. Many sentences feel as though they have been run through a thesaurus designed to produce obfuscatory language. I cannot understand many of the sentences; academia-speak runs rampant. In addition, there are repetitions of content that make it unclear what each section's focus is. The prose issues are severe enough that if they are not rapidly fixed, the article cannot pass GA. The detailed comments below give a sense of the problem; I only got through the lead and 1.5 sections before exhausting myself. The article looks good on a broad scale, but as soon as you try to really understand what each sentence means, problems present themselves. There are repeated issues with passive verb tense. It is not something I generally have an issue with, but here it is used far too liberally to make sweeping statements and support claims from unidentified sources. Please read through the comments below and let me know what you think about all this. I'd like to see this article reach GA, but I'm afraid many parts of it will need a comprehensive re-write to be comprehensible. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- @DMT Biscuit: Thank you for the copyedits you've been making! How quickly do you think you'll be able to get through all the comments and then through the rest of the article. The prose overall is still pretty far from GA standard in most of the article right now; perhaps I could put the review on hold for two weeks to give you time to go through it fully? Let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I should be done with your outlined copyedits by today. Real-life and such got in the way. I'll then do a general overview. Two weeks seems a bit excessive but I appreciate the notice. If by that point it's still a work in progress then, shall we say, greener pastures and whatnot.
- @DMT Biscuit: Thank you for the copyedits you've been making! How quickly do you think you'll be able to get through all the comments and then through the rest of the article. The prose overall is still pretty far from GA standard in most of the article right now; perhaps I could put the review on hold for two weeks to give you time to go through it fully? Let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please ping me when you are done with your edits. Bear in mind that I was only able to get through the first half of the article - there are similar prose issues in the second half as well; if you can work through those, that would be great - if you'd like for me to make more specific comments on them, like the ones below, just let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have no objections to you continuing your comments. It's per your discretion. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @DMT Biscuit: I've just had another careful read through and although you have made improvements in some places, the article still has many confusing sentences, difficult-to-parse phrases, and overly obfuscatory language choices. Not all of the comments below have been addressed yet, either. I'll give it another 24 hours, but at the end of that period, unless the prose is dramatically improved, this GA review will not pass. However, I would encourage you not to give up - there's a lot of great material here and the article has plenty of potential. I'd recommend asking for help from the WP:GUILD of Copyeditors, and then re-nominating for GA after going through the article with a fine-toothed comb. Thank you for your effort on this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I concur that the GAN should come to a timely end. Presently, my time isn't what it was. Best to take the tortoise approach, so to speak. I've had experience with the Guild so I am confident in the results to come. Thanks for the thorough review. DMT Biscuit (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have no objections to you continuing your comments. It's per your discretion. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
As is usual, I've gone through and made any prose tweaks and nitpicks myself to save us time. If there are any changes you object to, let me know and we can discuss.
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |