Talk:Drexel 4257/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 13:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I'm sorry for the delay. I'm now reviewing the article at this very moment, comments will follow. Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a very quick read of the article and it appears to be at or about GA-level, but I've not checked any references or copyright statuses, so I'm going to carry out a full review. This means I'm going to work my way the article starting at the Historical context section and finishing with the WP:Lead and note any "problems" that I find here.

Historical context -

General and physical description -

This section appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

Dating -

This section appears to be compliant.

Provenance -

This section appears to be compliant.

Organization -

There were several links in this section to disambiguation pages. I changed Robert Herrick to Robert Herrick (poet) (four times since he's also in the table, in three places) and John Suckling to John Suckling (poet). I think these are the correct destinations.

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this section was OK.

Handwriting -

I added a copy of wikilinks, incipit & secretary hand, but this section is OK.

Politics -

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section appears to be compliant.

Topical or literary content -

This section appears to be compliant.

Musical content and style -

Note: I wikilinked the technical terms: naturals, sharps and flats; I also moved the link from Dissonance, a disambiguation page, to Dissonance.
However, this section appears to be compliant.

Significance -

This section appears to be compliant.

List of songs & List of songs -

OK.

WP:Lead -

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a good summary/introduction, so compliant with WP:WIAGA.

Scope.

The General and physical description contains a lot of detail and its all verifiable via citations, so I've marked its fully compliant. However, there is a picture of the book in the infobox and its bound with what appears to be leather and/or buckram bindings. There is no comment on this, for instance is it known when and by whom this was done; nor on the size of the folios, instance 10 by 8 (inches) (yes, this is unlikely since the images show a folio that is roughly 2:1 on height:width), foolscap, etc? Pyrotec (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately left this out because it would be original research. But I had an idea: If I get a picture of the binding date/binder's statement and upload it to Commons, then I can comment on it, right? -- kosboot (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be wrong of me to ask for information that would be OR. You can comment on information that is in the public domain. Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've now added it. - kosboot (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative and well researched article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Yes, and all taken by the nominator
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I have no hesitation in awarding this article GA-status. I think that it has the makings of a WP:FAC, but I would draw attention to my comments above, i.e. "there is a picture of the book in the infobox and its bound with what appears to be leather and/or buckram bindings. There is no comment on this, for instance is it known when and by whom this was done; nor on the size of the folios, instance 10 by 8 (inches) (yes, this is unlikely since the images show a folio that is roughly 2:1 on height:width), foolscap, etc?". At GA, this is at best a minor uncertainty, and I've discounted it but I strongly suspect that it would be needed at FA. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]