Talk:Johann Reinhold Forster/GA1
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA Review
[edit ]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Kusma (talk · contribs) 15:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 09:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Hello! I will be reviewing this article and will have comments here soon. Alexeyevitch (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
| 1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
| 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
| 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
| 2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
| 2c. it contains no original research. |
No issues, no uncited paragraphs, etc. | |
| 2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
| 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
| 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
| 4. Neutral : it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
| 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
| 6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
| 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
| 7. Overall assessment. | Looks good. Promoting to GA. | |
- Thank you for reviewing! I have updated the image URL for Pennant and removed the Warrington image as I can't verify it. I might add another one from [1] at some later time. Will get to the rest soonish. —Kusma (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- No problem... I also think that's most of the general comments from me. Alexeyevitch (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- 1a done a part but did not expand the Lake Forster episode; I think more detail would need to be spread more evenly over the voyage.
- 1b all done I think.
- 3a memorial plaque is now in the prose as well.
- 6a added archive URL for lede image.
- @Alexeyevitch, thank you again! Is there anything else you would like for GA status or do you have any recommendations how to improve the article further? —Kusma (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I think this is a great article of his life, as is; it's comprehensive, cites reliable sources, has media. There is a few things left to check and once done I'll be happy promote it to GA. Alexeyevitch (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- That's great. If you have any additional ideas what to improve, please let me know. I am planning to go for FA status later; currently I think the sections needing most work to become comprehensive are those on taxa named by/after him, works and legacy/reception/honours. —Kusma (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I'm not quite sure what should and shouldn't get expanded, though any improvements to the article will help it towards that goal. I haven't worked on any FAs yet but I'm aware image licensing and organization may be good to verify or check beforehand. Alexeyevitch (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I should be done with finalizing the review today or tomorrow. Alexeyevitch (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I'm not quite sure what should and shouldn't get expanded, though any improvements to the article will help it towards that goal. I haven't worked on any FAs yet but I'm aware image licensing and organization may be good to verify or check beforehand. Alexeyevitch (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- That's great. If you have any additional ideas what to improve, please let me know. I am planning to go for FA status later; currently I think the sections needing most work to become comprehensive are those on taxa named by/after him, works and legacy/reception/honours. —Kusma (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- I think this is a great article of his life, as is; it's comprehensive, cites reliable sources, has media. There is a few things left to check and once done I'll be happy promote it to GA. Alexeyevitch (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.