GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 17:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Review to be forthcoming. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgan695: Please refrain from editing an article under review. When the article being reviewed changes, it can be like trying to hit a moving target. (Better to discuss changes as part of the review.) Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Very small points of paraphrasing and presenting information from sources. AGF for offline sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Passed!

Review comments

Prose
Referencing & verifiability

I mistakenly thought that the links in Bibliography were external links to the sources. I've since found a few of these on Google Books and added URLs to the citations, replacing some of the internal links to Wikipedia articles on those works. Because this is the reference section, and Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source, I felt that these external links were more useful.

Media

Non-free use rationale for image File:Yoban Sādo.png verified. Three other images with CC licences.

Other areas to improve

Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might want to improve:

General discussion

This is article is really quite nice. It's interesting, it gives a broad summary without going into too much detail, has just the right amount of quotations, illustrative images, and really not a lot for me to suggest in the way of improvement. Unfortunately, I was not able to access all of the sources for verification, but I have no problem with those given the extremely few issues I came across with the sources I did check.

Oh, I also did some light copyedit and MOS fixes for the article; if you disagree with any of that, we can discuss as part of this review.

I'll be putting this review "on hold" for your responses and edits to bring the article up to the GA criteria. It shouldn't take much. If you disagree with any of my notes, I'm open to discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: Hi, thanks for taking up this review. I've implemented your suggested edits, which I believe were all justified and enhance the article. I have no reason to believe the Star of the Giants "special effects" portion is inaccurate or incorrectly cited. Morgan695 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! You've addressed all of my points and I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria. Passing GA! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]