Talk:Ada Lovelace/2014/January

Nominated for Good Article?
A good article is—

1. Well-written:
 * a. the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct and
 * b. 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:
 * a.it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
 * b.it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines and
 * c.it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:
 * a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic and
 * b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without 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 images:
 * a.images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b.images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I think the article fits all criteria for a Good Article. Please comment here if you were thinking different, so we could improve the article to make it better.

StefanSong (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * An editor who has edited for 10 days and has around 30 edits has suggested that Ada Lovelace be assessed for WP:Good article status. He is thanked for following WP:BRD, but I think his proposal is premature as this important article contains several substantial problems that need to be resolved first.


 * 1. There has been much discussion in the talk page above about how Ada should be referred to by name in the article. This has been exacerbated by the influx of inexperienced editors from special interest groups. Consensus has not yet achieved a stable state.


 * 2. A non-professional scholar has published a compilation of Ada's letters under a minor press. Laudable though this is, the scholar has insisted on inserting their own name three times in the main text and at least 13 times in the references. Issues of WP:Undue and WP:COI need to be looked at.


 * 3. There is a major issue over: 3. Controversy over extent of contributions. This section contains claims and counter-claims by protagonists about this crucial matter and needs to be overviewed and adjudicated.


 * Until consensus is obtained on these issues the article will not be ready for assessment as a WP:GA. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC).