Talk:Zimmerwald Conference/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC) I'll do this one.[reply]

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.
	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.
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.	Not listed

Comments

the structure does not follow MOS:LAYOUT, both the list of delegates and signatories belongs above "See also" Done
citations are needed for a number of statements and paragraphs, I have tagged them.
the lead is inadequate to meet MOS:LEAD, and needs to properly summarise the article.
marxists.org is not a WP:RS, and should not be used as an External link Done
the article seems to be almost entirely drawn from Gankin and Fisher
Karl Liebknecht is overlinked

(more to follow)

"Gankin and Fisher" is a large collection of primary documents published by the Hoover Institution. I guess I need more secondary sources?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. Absolutely. I almost quick failed this nomination due to the missing citations, structural issues and inadequate lead, but I'll put it on hold for seven days if you think you can rectify them all in that time. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed. Missing citations, reliance on a collection of primary sources and inadequate lead. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]