Talk:Renia Spiegel/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you look at this comparison, you will see that some of the language - obviously disregarding the quotations - is a little close. Eg "wrote about ordinary topics such as school, friendships, and romance, as well as about her fear", or "not read by others until 2012" are quite distinct phrases. Would it be possible to paraphrase the non-quote bits currently in red a little further from the source?
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.
- "near the old Romanian border" Might it be better to say 'then', rather than "old"?
- "the diary contains drawings and poems authored by Spiegel" "authored by Spiegel" seems a bit unnecessary; I suggest deleting it.
- It is not necessary to include citations in the lead, as this is a summary of information given in more detail in the main article where it is cited.
What an excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for the quick review, Gog the Mild! I'm glad the article is generally strong. I'll work on your suggestions in the next week. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I hadn't realised that it was new; it just looked like an interesting article to review. Discovering how good a quality it was was a bonus. Feel free to take your time. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Gog the Mild -- I went through and addressed your feedback. Here's what I changed:
- I removed any mention of "then" or "old" about the Romanian border. I did this because I looked at several other GA history articles (such as World War II) to see how they talk about defunct borders, and they don't qualify them. I think the idea is that the reader knows from context that we're referring to the "then" border. Does this sound okay to you?
- I removed "authored by Spiegel", but wrote "original poems", so that it's clear that Spiegel wrote the poems, as opposed to copying others' poems into her diary.
- I removed the citations in the lead.
- Regarding the output from the copyvio tool, I am pretty sure that the website with the overlap pulled that text from the Wikipedia article. I didn't use that site as a source for the article, and it was published after I wrote the text. Should I still rephrase, or leave it alone?
- Please let me know what you think, and if there is anything else I should change. Thanks again for working with me! -- Cloud atlas (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Gog the Mild -- I went through and addressed your feedback. Here's what I changed:
- That all looks good. Regarding the "close paraphrasing", apologies, you are correct; someone has lifted wording from your article and copyrighted it. I should have investigated further. A very nice piece of work, well done. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
