Talk:Broder Knudtzon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 04:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Valid external links (no action required)
 * No dab links (no action required)
 * Wikify English language and English culture.
 * MoS calls for "[village/town/city], [city/country]," constructions, so please enter commas where necessary.
 * "In the years of 1839–57" --> "During 1839–57"?
 * Not sure about you, but I put p. in front of book pages in my references ie "Aase p. 133."
 * Remove unnecessary capitalistion from "Works Cited", and please add alt text as per MoS.

Please add


 * Ok, I have acted on all your suggestions sans the removal of capitalisation from "Works Cited", the preceding "p." before book pages and the addition of an infobox. The uppercase "Works Cited" and page numbers w/out "p." or "pp." are features of the MLA style, which I have utilised in this article. I also have a hard time figuring out what part of the GA criteria mandate the use of an infobox. Thanks for the review. Eisfbnore  talk 17:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, infoboxes don't have to be added for the article to be of GA standard, but I think it's more informative and convenient for those having a brief look at the article. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, then we certainly differ on the usefulness of infoboxes; I think they're visually appalling, overly simplistic and redundant, as they do nothing but repeat what is already written in the lead. Whilst I realise that they may be advantageous in long articles in need of a handy summarizing box, there's absolutely no need for them in a shortish article like this. Meanwhile, would you mind passing the article? Eisfbnore  talk 11:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "overly simplistic" isn't that the role of an infobox? If you're not gonna add it, I will. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to be this frank, but have you really got no other rationale for squeezing in a clumsy infobox than your personal preferences? What the Good article criteria are not states:
 * Infoboxes and navigation templates. The GA criteria neither require nor prohibit the inclusion of these, so their presence or absence should not, in itself, affect the review. However, as with all material in an article, the information in an infobox (such as titles, definitions, or statistics) is required to meet the GA criteria. Since information in an infobox is usually repeated in the body of the article, this is rarely a concern.
 * So please respect my discretion re. infobox. Otherwise, thank you for passing the article. -- Eisfbnore talk 15:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The absense of the infobox didn't affect the outcome of the GAN -- either way, I would've passed it -- I only added it after passing the GAN. So, to a totally different issue, the inclusion of an infobox is called for. Your rationale is that it is overly-simplistic which, quite frankly, has no basis at all (I can say the same thing about almost every other articles and remove all their infoboxes). This opposes the MOS convention that infoboxes should be added to articles. But since you've done such a good job on the article, I won't reinclude it until a consensus has been reached. I don't want to create a bad feeling between you and I, since, let's be honest, Wikipedia has no place for such things, and nobody will benefit if you and I quarrel about this endlessly. The only solution is dialogue, to set this matter out -- do you agree with my view on how this issue should be resolved? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 15:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you're acting in good faith, but infoboxes are neither mandated by the MoS nor the GA criteria; hence, it is of little value to use a GA review to advocate the use of one. I'm also appreciative of good faith suggestions, but it in this case I had already contemplated the use of an infobox, and had come to the conclusion that it added nothing to the article. As already mentioned, infoboxes can be useful in very long articles where a short summary is needed, but in this short article, all the crucial facts about Knudtzon were aggregated in the lead summary. I am not the only Wikipedia editor who thinks that infoboxes are clumsy and intimidating; see this and this discussion to see how daunting some people find them in biographical articles. Anyway, I'm delighted you respect consensus; you may request a second opinion, ask for a reassessment, whatever -- I frankly don't care about the little green plus button mark in the top of the article. Just pls don't add an infobox to this nice little article. -- Eisfbnore talk 17:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah alright, but don't blame me down the track for not telling you to include an infobox. Cheers, and have a wonderful new year, wherever you may be, and keep up the fantastic work ;) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers to you too, and my very best wishes to you and to yours. -- Eisfbnore talk 00:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)