Talk:Carl Eytel/GA1

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 08:26, 6 October 2012 (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:

Some major issues listed below: --Kürbis (✔) 08:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "living in " - this is not true
 * Fixed
 * do not link years per WP:YEARLINK
 * Fixed (although the years were for the particular years in art)
 * Lead is very short
 * Expanded, but more work is in process. Fixed.
 * Don't like the long footnotes; if possible use a simple structure
 *  Not sure how to resolve long footnotes -- length comes from the quotes which underwrite the text without adding excessive detail in the text. Nor am I clear on how footnote length fits into GA criteria. Perhaps I can set up a Notes section for such details and leave the simplier footnotes in the Reference section. Footnote markers have been placed in numerical order in the text and combined when they are related. Also shortened. Again, I'm unclear on how too many or long footnotes comes within GA criteria. Would a Notes section, a la those in the FA Elvis Presley be better?  If so, I'll need a bit more time.
 * Yes, this is a good idea. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Several dab links
 * Fixed (had one dab and a few links to lists)
 * The many footnotes are sometimes distracting and disturbes the flow. You use footnotes for nearly every sentence, which is quite excessive
 *  Fixing -- putting footnotes at end of sentences & will probably combine more of the related footnotes. As above, combined and shortened. (IMHO, fixed.) And, as above, too many footnotes?
 * " – a school so-named because of a " -, which was named after a ...
 * Fixed
 * Use surname + forename in the first occassion. For example don't just state "Monet"
 * Fixed
 * The listy Subjects section could be conveyed to prose
 * Fixed. The one "listy" portion simply covers the various geographic features Eytel did.

Progress
Fixes and comments have been provided above. As I am better at WP:GNOME editing, my prose-ing the article up to GA standards needs a bit more time. The GA review process should not take more than 2 weeks to complete -- with that restriction in mind, I ask for the full 14 days to get this done.--User:Srich32977 (User talk:Srich32977) 09:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, take your time. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Various items now "fixed". Made notes to the various items. Whatayathink? --S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)04:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

All the issues noted above have been fixed, so the article passes GA status. Wizardman 03:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)