Talk:Burnt Norton/GA1

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

Starting review, and it will not take too long. Alan16 (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Result - ❌

Quick-fail criteria


 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources.
 * 2) * - I don't know. All the sources require me having a copy of a book. I don't have those books. It would be good to have some online sources, simply to be able to verify some things. At the moment I can't verify anything.
 * 3) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way.
 * 4) * - On the whole it is NPOV, so it is fine for this.
 * 5) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid.
 * 6) * - There are no banners in place, however there perhaps should be.
 * 7) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 8) * - No problems here.
 * 9) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event.
 * 10) * - No problems here.

It passes the quick-fail criteria just about.

However, I'll jump straight to the point on the GA criteria.


 * 1) Contain no original research.
 * 2) * - Large parts of this article absolutely stink of original research, and so this article does not pass GA review. I'll explain in more detail below.

Conclusion

In articles on works of literature, the information on themes and meanings needs to be so well sources. If you take the "poem" section for example, it is full of stuff on themes etc., but it contains only one inline citation. That is not enough for 10 sentences of what therefore feels like original research. I'd also hope for more reliable sources in the themes section - 5 seems a bit few for a decent chunk of writing. Apart from this, the article is well written with accurate spelling and grammar, but wikilinks are scarce on the ground (key words like "poem" and "theme" would be good links, as well as some of the concepts talked about in the themes section) and an infobox wouldn't go amiss. It is a good start, and a solid base to work from. It has potential.

As it seems to have been decided that I am not competent enough to review GA nominations I'm removing this review. Somebody else can go ahead and review it, but I will not review it - if only for the reason that it will seem like I have been pressurized into passing it. It would be better if an independent reviewer did it. Alan16 (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Review carried out by Alan16 (talk) on 9 August 2009
 * There is no requirement that sources be online. that is not a valid objection. The vast majority of books are considered RS. It's not even required they be in English.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 13:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a perfectly valid way of citing sources. The ref is for the entire paragraph. Personally, the lead looks way too short and needs a sentence about the reception, but the rest of the article looks fine. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed with both the above. Please reconsider this review; this is sourced and referenced perfectly correctly. Having read the whole thing top to bottom, I can see no original research whatsoever. – iride  scent  16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)