Talk:Thor/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Shii (talk · contribs) 06:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- The section from the Edda is slightly long and quotes extensively from a single source, even though the Edda can reasonably be said to be the best source for understanding Thor's traditional role. I am concerned that the reader could lose the focus of the text here.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Excellent use of free images from Commons, although ideally, the images should be more clearly centered on Thor's person (it's okay to crop them), and there should be more color. Good use of galleries.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Hello and thank you for the kind words about the article. I should note that I am the primary author of this article as it stands and yet I don't think the article is GA material; the Poetic Edda material needs to be expanded upon, as does a fair amount of the Prose Edda material, which means a significant amount of work. It also needs a comparative section in the theories section. Before these sections are in a reasonable state I cannot support this article reaching GA status. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do think the article is quite good, and while a comparative section would be nice I don't think it's necessary for GA (which only means the article is decent, not totally complete). What you should be focusing on is getting both the Prose and Poetic Edda sections into something that is both succinct and hits all the important points. Shii (tock) 13:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello and thank you for the kind words about the article. I should note that I am the primary author of this article as it stands and yet I don't think the article is GA material; the Poetic Edda material needs to be expanded upon, as does a fair amount of the Prose Edda material, which means a significant amount of work. It also needs a comparative section in the theories section. Before these sections are in a reasonable state I cannot support this article reaching GA status. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- GA criteria requires inline citations for quotations. While an end of paragraph citation is perfectly acceptable, it doesn't hurt to have a closer citation as that is immediately reassuring for a reader. While not at all required for GA (or indeed anywhere at all on Wikipedia), if a source has been scanned and appears online in a legitimate format, such as Google Books, it is immensely helpful to link to that online source. At a quick scan, this looks like a very decent article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Since that's the only issue and, iven the why it's structured the ref can be easily figured out, the review can now be closed. Wizardman 03:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)