Talk:Malcolm (Macbeth)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 19:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this review. It'll be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. Second review on a guy named Malcolm!
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- 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:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
General comments
[edit]- My initial thoughts was that the article was greatly lacking in detail. I went looking, and found Banquo, a GA on another character from Macbeth. The comparison is illuminating.
- This article is near entirely a plot summary of over 700 words. This plot summary randomly includes quotes from the play, most of which are not useful. I would recommend that they all be removed. By comparison, the Banquo article has a two-paragraph "role in the play" section which contains no quotes and amounts to no more than 324 words.
- Macbeth is a work by Shakespeare, so there should be extensive literary analysis over the centuries. This is well shown at Banquo, which contains numerous citations to literary critics and journals and an "Analysis" section almost as long as the entirety of this article. By contrast, this article's sourcing is restricted to a few general studies and Cliff Notes, which per WP:RSP is only "usable for superficial analyses of literature"; I would expect more than superficiality from a Shakespeare GA.
- There is only one sentence, in the lead, about the connection to the historical King Malcolm, and there is absolutely no discussion of performances.
- Therefore, this article is a borderline WP:QF because it is so far from addressing the main aspects of the subject (GA criterion 3a)); I will put it on hold for a week, in case the nominator feels they can turn it around. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I've had another look, and there is just so much material that isn't discussed or even touched on in this article that I'm going to quickfail it as being a long way away from GA criterion 3a), and that's not even touching the WP:WAF issues. I would recommend adding sections like those at Banquo before renominating. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2024 (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.