Talk:Bookwheel/GA1

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

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 01:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's my review:
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
Gave this a few copy edits. Here are my comments: Short and sweet: nice work. On hold for a fortnight. 23W 02:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The two alternative names are significant enough to be in boldface, per WP:BOLDTITLE.
 * Expand the lead a little to include information about the inventor, the year it was invented, etc.
 * "Unnecessarily elaborate": not sure if that's neutral.
 * Per WP:MINREF, include a citation after the direct quotation after "... tormented by gout".
 * Would recommend using Commons category instead of having the gallery, per WP:IG.
 * dupdet didn't turn up anything, so that's good.
 * Made edits per your suggestions, thanks for your review! The only one I did not make was the "unnecessarily elaborate" change, as it is my understanding that that is a well-attested and uncontroversial claim about the bookwheel. See for instance this page which discusses "design for showmanship's sake" with additional sourced statements. Geethree (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Changes look good, looks like I'll pass. 23W 01:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)