Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sarama/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: No action. Further comments have been provided on improving the article. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Sarama/GA2 passes the article in all other criteria, except 1: "Prose is poor; cf Talk:Sarama/GA1". The GA2 does not point out specific instances of poor prose. The review does not take into account that a WP:GOCE copyedit was conducted after the GA1 fail when the flaws pointed in GA1 were acted upon. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- (Comment by initial reviewer) My furher explanation of the review is here. I am happy for my decision to be challenged, but I do maintain that the article as it stands does not flow well enough to be awarded considered a Good Article. AGK [•] 16:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured: "A good article must be reasonably well written; a featured article must have a professional standard of writing that is engaging, even brilliant." The prose does have to have a great professional flow, it just has to be clear and concise. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- My point is that there is such little flow that the writing is difficult to follow, and therefore does not in my view satisfy the requirement that it be "clear". AGK [•] 13:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please point out some examples so they can be amended. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- My point is that there is such little flow that the writing is difficult to follow, and therefore does not in my view satisfy the requirement that it be "clear". AGK [•] 13:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured: "A good article must be reasonably well written; a featured article must have a professional standard of writing that is engaging, even brilliant." The prose does have to have a great professional flow, it just has to be clear and concise. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Unfortunately, getting an article copyedited does not guarantee that the prose will be fixed, as there are limits to what a copyeditor can achieve.
- I concur that the prose is still not clear and concise. Indeed, I would further suggest that this is not just a (1a) problem, but that criterion (3b) may be an issue. The article appears to go into intricate detail regarding all possible variations of myths about Sarama appearing in multiple scriptures. The result is confusing and repetitive prose. I suggest concentrating on the basic stories, then briefly indicating significant variations between texts. As for the prose itself, one problem is overuse of the passive tense, in the form "is/are described [as/by]", "is interpreted [as/by]", "is regarded [as]", "is said to". Every sentence should have a subject, and finding a good subject is one of the challenges of encyclopedic writing. In the worst case, the passive voice may amount to weasel words (1b) in which an opinion is unattributed.
- The review was uninformative in this respect, but the outcome looks sound to me. Hopefully comments made here will suggest improvements to the article so that it can be renominated at GAN with a more successful outcome. In rewriting the article, make sure you stick to the narrative present when describing mythological stories: I fixed some deviations while partially copyediting the article before this review. Geometry guy 01:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, which not only tell the problem but also tell a solution. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)