Jump to content

Talk:Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Eisfbnore talk 12:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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