Talk:Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism/GA1

Your GA nomination of The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism

The article The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism for issues which need to be addressed. Srobodao84 (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Srobodao84 (talk · contribs) 03:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Srobodao84 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Well written	Pass
(b) (MoS)	In the first paragraph of the article, I recommend to the authors to explain "what" the commission is and "why" it was established. A reader who is unfamiliar with the topic of "animal magnetism" does not immediately understand what you are talking about.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Reference are good and well cited	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	yes	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No plagisrism, checked with grammarly	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article deeply delves into the topic, but an historic reviewer is needed	Pass
(b) (focused)	In my opinion, the first part of the article is too broad and explores aspects that are not necessarily relevant. Furthermore, the core of the article (the commission description) is described after more than 4000 words. I suggest reducing the text in the first part to make the article more focused on the topic. The section "Four Vestiges of the Practice of Contact Magnetization" also seems superfluous or misplaced.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
this sentence is strong "These facts expose the error in the commonly expressed (in modern literature) and extremely misleading misrepresentation of affairs; namely, the assertion that the Commissions had agreed that, in each case, Mesmer had" cured "his patients:" "and probably need more references.	Don't know

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	the authors expanded and improved the page as requested. However, a historical peer review is suggested. But from a formal point of view the article is a good article.