Talk:Bookwheel/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

Gave this a few copy edits. Here are my comments:

The two alternative names are significant enough to be in boldface, per WP:BOLDTITLE.
Expand the lead a little to include information about the inventor, the year it was invented, etc.
"Unnecessarily elaborate": not sure if that's neutral.
Per WP:MINREF, include a citation after the direct quotation after "... tormented by gout".
Would recommend using {{Commons category}} instead of having the gallery, per WP:IG.
dupdet didn't turn up anything, so that's good.

Short and sweet: nice work. On hold for a fortnight. 23W 02:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made edits per your suggestions, thanks for your review! The only one I did not make was the "unnecessarily elaborate" change, as it is my understanding that that is a well-attested and uncontroversial claim about the bookwheel. See for instance this page which discusses "design for showmanship's sake" with additional sourced statements. Geethree (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Geethree: I see. Changes look good, looks like I'll pass. 23W 01:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]