Talk:Elfern/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 10:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements - Copyvio comes up clean Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - no CNs Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - No signs of edit warring Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Links

Prose

Lede

• Lede is very lacking. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• "An old game that's very easy and enjoyable" - hardly WP:NPOV is it? Also not attributed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• also known as Eilfern, Figurenspiel or Elfmandeln - probably better as a note Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• , is a very old - not encyclopaedic. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• German and Austrian 6-card, - Infobox says German. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Could the lede sentence specifically say this is a card game? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• French-suited Piquet pack or German-suited Skat pack - WP:SEAOFBLUE Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• The object is to win the majority of the 20 honours: the Ace, King, Queen, Jack and Ten in a Piquet pack or the Ace, King, Ober, Unter and Ten in a Skat pack. - what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• yet it is still played by German children - competively? Surely it's played by anyone who knows the rules... Is there a community for this, or? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Lede needs a little more, and much better wording Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

History

• Elfern is a primitive German game - put card game in there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
• Should we just assume we know who Hammer is? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• "played in many parts of Germany, albeit not very commonly" - is this quote important? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• in 1862, as "the simplest drinking game", the winner of the majority of honours, earning the "right of drinking from the glasses of his opponents." - this will need some better explination. I have no idea what this means. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• When mentioning a person, you should use their full name on the first mention, such as David Parlett Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Although Parlett states that the game was "not recorded before the nineteenth century", - huh? The previous sentence talks about it being referenced in the 1700s. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• It is still played by German children. - As per lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Elfern, formerly also called Eilfern, is German for "playing Elevens", and Elfmandeln is Austrian and Bavarian German for "eleven little men". - the word "translate" should be in here somewhere. Should also link Bavarian German. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Thus both names - "thus" is more like WP:OR. Does the cite say this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• . Figurenspiel is also German and can be roughly translated as "honours game - outside of the lede, this name isn't used, it needs to be stated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• This name evidently refers to the fact that only the court cards plus aces and tens contribute to the score - OR again. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes & References

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definately not manditory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sadly, this won't pass. I'll add a few more comments above which you should take a look at. The crux of this fail is that I couldn't find a sentence that I was happy with for the first three paragraphs. I feel this article is far too close to the subject for it to be a GA, it needs to be readable by all. I'd suggest editing as per the above advice, and giving it a copyedit before re-nominating. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.