Talk:Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine

Book title

Should this article be moved to its English title? Meanwhile I am setting up a redirect. --Greenmaven (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops!It's been done already! --Greenmaven (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What are the conventions for this? The novel hasn't actually been translated into English, so the German title is the only 'official' title it has. I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a move, but if the WP conventions are neutral on this question, I think I'd prefer to keep the title of this article as it is. We offer a translation of the title in the infobox, and I don't think anybody would not be able to find it because it's listed under its original title (it's also not a very well-known novel). Your thoughts? Sindinero (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess you know that it can be reached by Wadzek's Struggle with the Steam Turbine. So I am in agreement to leave things as they are. I do not know what 'the convention' is in WP. My guess? — there isn't one! BTW I think the article is very well written. Happy Xmas --Greenmaven (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eisfbnore (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: →

   Seems fine, I did a light copyedit for style and grammar; revert if you feel uneasy about it. 'Deludedly' does not appear in the dictionary, however.

   I've modified the sentence with "deludedly" - that word is in the OED, and isn't listed as archaic; sometimes adverbs formed from adjectives by adding -ly aren't in smaller dictionaries, but I've never met an adjective that couldn't be adverbialized. Sindinero (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

   Your changes are good; I made one reversion (in the last section) where I felt that the participial (-ing) form does create a better flow and a tighter sentence. Sindinero (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   AGF for the off-line sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: →

   Could do with more information about copyright status, perhaps using {{Non-free media rationale}}; see here for a good example

   Since it was published in 1918, the cover might actually be public domain. I'll look into this and fix the licensing. Sindinero (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

   Alright, I've fixed this. From everything I've been able to understand, it is indeed in the public domain. If you prefer to be sure, we can wait a few days to see if anyone watching the licensing pages raises an objection, but as I understand it, all material published before 1923 is in the public domain. Sindinero (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: →

Eisfbnore ^talk 12:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am passing it; congratulations with a good article! Eisfbnore ^talk 18:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)