Jump to content

Talk:Johannes van Damme/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk · contribs) 14:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811 thank you for making the effort to review the article, I put in alot of effort to cross reference everything that went into it, and if you look back on the edits i have made you will see the incremental improvements over nearly 12 months with reference links to various articles & archived documents backing up each part WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Feel free to respond to comments below as I go, or in comments up here. I should be done with my initial review in a couple of days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811 cool ... regarding "trouble analyzing some sources", i am not sure if you are using an automated tool but quite a few <ref> make use of archived newspapers (such as https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/) that contain microfilm images rather than HTML text, so that would obviously affect automated tools, also for articles behind a paywall i used an archive site (https://archive.ph/) to read the full text, however i used the original URL in the <ref> so as if the archive site is shut down the link is not lost .... feel free to ask questions if u require any further clarification, i am online almost everyday WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Earwig tool will have trouble with those, it just requires some manual spot-checking on my part. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sure thing, i have tried to paraphrase the newspaper reports as much as possible to avoid allegations of plagiarism, also to give a bit of colour to rather dry court reports in some instances 15:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and complete the review in the next couple days, but it may be delayed to Saturday due to the US holiday - just wanted to let you know! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no problem, take your time, much appreciated WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[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).
  • Yes, it's fine to ignore those.

As this is a recurring issue, I won't list them all, but please go through all the citations and ensure that, where available, the author is given, the publisher is linked, any rehoster is noted (with the "via" attribute of template), and it is archived if possible. Where an ISSN is available, please add that as well.

  • To answer - yes, and I recommend using the InternetArchiveBot tool here.
  • Can we regard Lianhe Zaobao as reliable? I'm seeing some discussion of its editorial policies which suggest it's less reliable due to alignment with the Chinese government.
  • In general, even if given in all caps in the source, newspaper article titles can be given in title case in our citations.
  • Is Guus van Bladel's book a reliable source? I'm unable to dig up much about him beyond what's in the aritcle, but given his closeness to Van Damme and events, it seems more like a primary source than a secondary one.
  • Where you can, please add the translated article titles in English to the citations - there's a field in the template for it.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • released a copy of the telegram that they received from Singapore prison officials is a borrowed phrase from source and should be modified. Earwig finds nothing else but had trouble analyzing some sources. (WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC) - I have now modified the text)[reply]
  • Hold for manual spot check.
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.
  • Yes - no major outstanding talk page issues or edit wars.
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.
  • Two fair use images + a non-copyrightable booklet - the Obiefuna image is a little shakier on fair use, but acceptable.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johannes_van_Damme/GA1&oldid=1233009416"