Talk:Thomas Carlyle (Millais)/GA1

    From Wikipedia!

    GA Review[edit]

    Template:Good article tools Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

    Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Nominator: Sinopecynic (talk · contribs) at 20:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    GA criteria[edit]

    GA review
    (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
    1. It is reasonably well written.
      a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Template:GAList/check
      b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Template:GAList/check
    2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
      a (references): Template:GAList/check
      b (citations to reliable sources): Template:GAList/check
      c (OR): Template:GAList/check
      d (copyvio and plagiarism): Template:GAList/check
    3. It is broad in its coverage.
      a (major aspects): Template:GAList/check
      b (focused): Template:GAList/check
    4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
      Fair representation without bias: Template:GAList/check
    5. It is stable.
      No edit wars, etc.: Template:GAList/check
    6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
      a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Template:GAList/check
      b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Template:GAList/check

    Pass/Fail: Template:GAList/check

    Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg


    I am afraid, but I'll have to quick-fail the article due to multiple reasons:

    • Recommending to have the GOCE copy-edit the article. The prose does not meet the criteria of being "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct". We have many phrases which are unclear/difficult to understand. Example: "It may have been one Mrs. Anstruther, a friend of Carlyle's who visited Millais' home to see the portrait, telling him that it was ...", etc. There are a lot of blockquotes and other long quotations, some of which can easily be paraphrased in Wikipedia's voice.
    • It has quite a few MOS issues. MOS:LEAD states that the lead section should be a summary of the article. We have a single sentenced lead that is never mentioned in the prose. We have MOS:SANDWICH issues, etc.
    • Few of the direct quotations and text lacks a citation, when direct quotations should definitely have one. Few of the references lack an url-access date.

    Overall, it will take a long time, or even a complete re-write of the article to fix these issues. So I am failing the nomination for now, but suggest you to keep working on these issues, and do renominate after they have been fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    General discussion[edit]

    Hi! I'll review this article as a part of the June 2022 backlog drive. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or need clarification for any point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]