Talk:Billy Budd/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This review may take a day or two to complete. When finished, I will claim it for points in the 2019 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * The plot summary needs to be re-worked. It contains several quotes that don't add understanding.
 * The "scrapings" of Billy Budd lie in the 351 leaves..." This is poetic, but overly-flowery for an encyclopedia article.
 * "this manuscript has been described as "chaotic,"" by whom?
 * with a bewildering array" - who finds it to be so?
 * "Weaver was astonished to find" - is his reaction notable and documented? Why not just say he found it?
 * "an unknown prose work entitled Billy Budd" - we're almost 1500 words into an article about Billy Budd. This is a weak attempt to build suspense.
 * "would later be described as "hastily transcribed"" - by whom?
 * ", strictly speaking," - not encyclopedic.
 * "what is now considered the correct" - when, and by whom?
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * no concern
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * There are six citation needed templates in the Adaptations section. These need to be addressed.
 * "named after the book by Thomas Paine" - this needs a citation.
 * " may be considered essentially the same text." - and it might not? This isn't sourced.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * The "ambiguity" in the final three chapters needs to be sourced. "turn the facts that the reader learned from the story upside down" seems particularly out of place.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig returned a couple high returns, but they appear to false positives that used this article as their main source of information.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Is the actor in the Broadway image identifiable?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This one has some significant issues I'd like to see addressed before I finish the review. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Failing due to a lack of response. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This one has some significant issues I'd like to see addressed before I finish the review. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Failing due to a lack of response. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)