Talk:Hominid (novel)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Fixed three dabs.[1]

Linkrot: No dead links. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I have made a number of copy-edits for clarity, grammar and style (also added citation needed tags).[2]

   ''Believing that this topic would not suffice for a long novel, he initially did not pursue the idea. In February 2008 Ebner won the Wiener Werkstattpreis in the categories of short story and essay—this literature award includes the publication of a 100-page book by the organizer of the award, the Viennese publishing house FZA. Hence Ebner wrote and finalized his narrative within four months. This needs rewriting for clarity, at the moment it is simply confusing and unclear. Did he win the prize with this novel? Done

   Please give me feedback if this is clear now. He did not win the prize with the book. The prize enabled him to write and publish the book.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

   ''Hominide was published in the October of the same year.[ Here you use the German title. For clarity and consistency use the English title, eg. "Homind was first published, with the german title Hominide, in October 2006. Then give details of English language publication, with the name of the translator. And add the ranslator's name to the infobox.

   Actually there is no English translation.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

   Ah, I see. {{OK{{

   Otherwise prose is reasonably well written, article complies sufficiently with the manual of style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No dead links

   I have placed three citation needed tags where I feel a cite is necessary.

    Done--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

   Citations need consistency. For references to works in the secondary sources list just the author name and page number; we need publishers and page names for all journals and books; if the source is in German then that needs to be made clear. Citation templates will help.

   Refs #29-35; This is English Wikipedia, please translate and attribute to book, authir, publisher, etc.

    Done??? I think this is a misunderstanding. The German passages are the original passages of the citations which are used in the text. Another "translation" would only be a copy-paste of the portion in the text. Also the authors are mentioned directly in the text. I translated only one citation which is longer than in the text. I would not change the others. Please feedback.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I see what you are doing -f you go to WP:FAC, you may need to re-arrange the citations soemhwat, but I am happy that everything is OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

   If you use a reference more than once then combine as per Wikipedia:Citing sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article appears to be broad and focussed

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   OK

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2010

   OK, thanks for fixing this. i am happy to confiorm as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)