User:Bfigura/Scratch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obnoxious banner[edit]

Attention students: Before you submit your article, please ensure that it does not duplicate content already on Wikipedia. Articles must be neutral, verifiable, and free of original research or synthesis. For help getting started, please see these helpful tips. Articles that don't meet these guidelines will likely be deleted. Consider starting a draft in your userspace by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YOURUSERNAME/DraftTitle. Thank you.


GAN Notes[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  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:
    (1) A few small issues on wikilinks: In the The Plantard Plot section, this: underground culture of esotericism wikilink seemed somewhat unclear. Looking at the linked page, I'm not sure if there is a better though. I have a similar issue with Great King link. It doesn't appear to link to a relevant concept, and I can't find a more appropriate article to link it to. (2) In the second paragraph of the same section, there's a reference to a "lost king", but no detail. Can this be explained, or linked? (3) The only other issue some might raise is the "In Popular Culture" section. However, in this article, the section is short, selective, and well-sourced, which I think is fine by consensus.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    In the "The Da Vinci Code" section: "For the dramatic structure of The Da Vinci Code, Brown chose to replace the Knights of Malta with the Roman Catholic prelature Opus Dei, as the Assassini-like nemesis of the Priory of Sion, in order to capitalize on controversies about Opus Dei." This sounds too speculative to be unsourced. Is this from an interview, or...?
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    see above.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    The sentence "However, re-interpreting the Dossiers Secrets in the light of their own interest in undermining the Roman Catholic Church's institutional reading of Judeo-Christian history, the authors asserted..." in the "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" section seems a bit strong to state without a source. It would probably be more neutral if there was a source to establish that the authors had an agenda. (Not that I doubt such a source exists, but it would be good if this line was cited. Does the sources cited in the sub-article for this line speak to this point?).
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No evidence of anything but constructive editing in history over the last few months.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold pending sources for the issues raised in sections (2) and (4). Overall, a great article that does a good job of giving the proper weight to academic consensus while including minority views in an appropriate manner. However a few sentences probably require sourcing.--Bfigura (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)