Talk:Louis Braille/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This is not a bad article, but, unfortunately, has some problems:
- While Braille deserves praise, an encyclopedia is meant to have a more neutral tone. The lead might be a little too much.
- Braille was French, his original table is essentially the same as the English, just has more letters. There is no reason why the article on him should use the derived, English version when that's not the one he invented.
- Examples of the other systems - Huay, Barbier, and possibly Braille's early system - would help show the development.
- It seems a little on the short side for a biography; however, as it seems fairly complete, this can probably be ignored.
It's a decent start, but I think it needs a little more work before GA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, and thank you for starting a review. Line #2 seems to be missing part of the last sentence, can you please fill it in? SteveStrummer (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments! I've attempted to improve the specific areas you mentioned.
- Rewrote the lede for tone.
- Replaced the image of modern English braille alphabet with Braille's own French.
- Added a two-letter comparative chart of all lettering systems.
Please let me know what you think of these changes. Thanks again, SteveStrummer (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- That looks almost perfect. The only one quibble is that that technically might not be the original form of braille in the image - see 1829 braille - but, even if true, that's somewhat of a quibble, as I don't believe that the 1829 version was used to any significant extent; it was simply a phase of development. I'm going to Pass it, have a look at that, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time and effort! SteveStrummer (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- That looks almost perfect. The only one quibble is that that technically might not be the original form of braille in the image - see 1829 braille - but, even if true, that's somewhat of a quibble, as I don't believe that the 1829 version was used to any significant extent; it was simply a phase of development. I'm going to Pass it, have a look at that, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)