Talk:Birger Nerman/GA1

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

Reviewer: Joe Roe (talk · contribs) 08:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Generally clear, encyclopaedia prose. There were some minor grammatical and typographical errors that I've fixed.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Lead: Is incomplete, it should summarise the major elements of his biography in each section. In the first sentence, "author" seems redundant to the scholarly occupations listed first, unless he also wrote non-scholarly works (which the article doesn't mention).
 * Layout: To conform to the the standard section headings, #Citations → #Notes and #Sources → #References. #Last years and #Personal life are also short and overlapping in content, so they could probably be merged.
 * Links: A few problems applying MOS:OVERLINK/MOS:UNDERLINK throughout. For example, well known modern countries ("Sweden", "Estonia") shouldn't be links; the occupations in the lead probably should be. There are several direct links to svwiki, which would be more clearly formatted with ill.
 * 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:, some minor formatting quibbles:
 * The page numbers in the footnote citations are unnecessary because they refer to the whole work and are given in the full reference.
 * Access dates aren't needed for either Karling 1971 or Holmqvist 1971; they're both static sources.
 * The columns in both the citations and references sections are unnecessary because they're quite short.
 * References in #Selected works are inconsistently formatted (first two are plain text, the rest use templates).
 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Marginal close paraphrasing of Stjernquist in places, but I'd say nothing unacceptable. There's only so many ways you can rephrase mundane biographical details.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * There's quite a bit more in the Stjernquist source that could be added. The article currently focuses primarily on his work on the Iron Age, but the sources gives almost equal weight to his early work Stone Age archaeology, his philological research, and his popular science writing.
 * Baudou alludes to the nationalist motivations behind Nerman's scholarship and political activity, but this is not mentioned.
 * 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:
 * There's unnecessary and unsupported peacock prose throughout, e.g. pioneering research, widespread acclaim, very active, tireless advocate, works of great importance.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:, but::
 * The lead image could do with a caption, i.e. stating when it was taken. It would be nice to have more than one image; if more free images of Nerman himself aren't available, maybe related images such as his books, notable collaborators, sites he worked on...?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nearly there, but there are a few problems that need to be address before I'd call it a GA, especially the short lead (1b), somewhat unbalanced coverage and peacock language (3a and 4), and layout and formatting issues (1b and 2a). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of these very useful recommendations. I have now modified the article in accordance with your review. Krakkos (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! That addressed all my points. I think it's good to go. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I recently nominated the article on the archaeologist Malcolm Todd for GA, and have updated that article in accordance with the recommendations you made here. Krakkos (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I recently nominated the article on the archaeologist Malcolm Todd for GA, and have updated that article in accordance with the recommendations you made here. Krakkos (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)