Talk:The Princess and the Pea/GA2

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   When I ran the Peer Review script to see what came up against the MoS, it said:

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is . Dag.

I agree with the first bullet point there, but not sure about the second point. Suggest adding in more links though.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Do the references which are located at the end of the paragraphs in the composition and commentary sections cover the whole of the paragraph? Also, as a suggestion, I think a quote maybe worth putting in the "Commentaries" section. Just a thought.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   some of the above bits just need clarifying and or changing, after which I'm happy to pass. Please leave a note on my talk when you have commented back. D.M.N. (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Replies

Thanks for the review. A few initial replies:

• I've added a couple of links, but I can't see anything else that warrants linking.
• The convention adopted is that a citation at the end of a paragraph sources everything in the paragraph.
• I'll see if I can find an appropriate quotation to add to the Commentaries section.

--Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've only just managed to get the sources from the library. I've now added what seems to me to be an appropriate quotation to the Commentaries section. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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, 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:

Passed. D.M.N. (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)