Talk:Rahlfs 1219/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Stephen Walch (talk · contribs) 18:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 01:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soon! IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

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.	The lead doesn't need citations if it is just a summary of the body. I suggest rewriting the lead to align more with Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	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).	There is several unreferenced pieces of text. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	per above. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	see comment below IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm going to have to fail this due to the number of unsourced text. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is another source copying from this article but [1] is showing that there is some copyvio. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @IntentionallyDense - thanks very much for the review comments. I've provided refs for the requested citations, and reworded the summary. Regarding the apparent copy violations - not sure how good your Polish is, but that's an English-Polish online dictionary which appears to have taken sentences from internet sources which reference "vinedresser", as a quick search of some of the sentence examples are also from other wikipedia pages. Hence this is just an AI generated online dictionary. :) Not sure that as you've failed the review you can re-do it now after my changes? Tyvm! Stephen Walch (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure about the copyvio thing and thats not why I failed it, I failed the article due to the unsourced sections which would qualify as quick fail criteria 3. Unfortunately you will need to renominate the article for it to be reassed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]