Your GA nomination of The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism

edit

The article The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism for issues which need to be addressed. Srobodao84 (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Srobodao84 (talk · contribs) 03:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Srobodao84 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply


Review

edit
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Well written   Pass
    (b) (MoS) In the first paragraph of the article, I recommend to the authors to explain "what" the commission is and "why" it was established. A reader who is unfamiliar with the topic of "animal magnetism" does not immediately understand what you are talking about.   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Reference are good and well cited   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) yes   Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No plagisrism, checked with grammarly   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article deeply delves into the topic, but an historic reviewer is needed   Pass
    (b) (focused) In my opinion, the first part of the article is too broad and explores aspects that are not necessarily relevant. Furthermore, the core of the article (the commission description) is described after more than 4000 words. I suggest reducing the text in the first part to make the article more focused on the topic. The section "Four Vestiges of the Practice of Contact Magnetization" also seems superfluous or misplaced.   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    this sentence is strong "These facts expose the error in the commonly expressed (in modern literature) and extremely misleading misrepresentation of affairs; namely, the assertion that the Commissions had agreed that, in each case, Mesmer had" cured "his patients:" "and probably need more references.   Don't know
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here   Pass

Result

edit
Result Notes
  Pass the authors expanded and improved the page as requested. However, a historical peer review is suggested. But from a formal point of view the article is a good article.

Discussion

edit