Talk:Cornelius Hermanus Wessels/GA1

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

Review
I will be reviewing this article using the GA Criteria. Any other editors are welcome to join in, make suggestions, and improve the article. --Banime (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial readthrough
I first read through this article to determine if a speedy fail is required. The topic is not treated in an obviously non-neutral way. There are currently no cleanup banners, and there is no history of vandalism or edit wars. Finally, this is not about a current event.

However, I am concerned by the lack of sources in this article. This article seems to rely on only 2 pages of one source, and briefly uses another source. The sources are also not cited very well and lack information. I also caught a large amount of spelling and grammar mistakes, as well as many awkard sentence structures consistently throughout the article. The article is overall written very poorly. Additionally, there is even an empty section in the "External Links" section, and a non-literature source in the "Literature" section. Finally, when browsing the sidebar one year has a question mark next to it, yet the article does not mention if there was any disputed term of his. I'd usually put the article On Hold and go on a more in depth review, but I do not think the adequate changes can be made within a week.

This article needs to be extensively improved. Keep in mind that the article must be sufficiently well written, that is one of the major drawbacks of this article. Sentences are awkward throughout. Perhaps the main editor of this article is not an english native? If that is the case, I highly suggest asking or finding a friend or english mentor to help with the improvement of the article before renominating. Also, if there is any way to get more citations, please look for them and find them. When searching google I could not find a single one. That is not immediately a negative, however it could prove difficult to search for further sources. The format of the article can also be improved. There seems to be just one large lump section and a small family section, and the External Links section is completely blank yet still exists. Sources and writing and copyeditting, as well as the general format of the article need to be improved before renomination.

I hope all editors involved can work on this project and help to improve it so that one day it can be renominated as GA. --Banime (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Michel Doortmont (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Empty section in the "External Links" section': look again; it contains a reference to a wikisource, which is an external link.
 * 'Non-literature source in the "Literature" section': repaired; minor problem, disputable with regard to what constitutes literature in terms of the format of the source. The fact that a source is only available in digital form does not automatically mean that it is not literature.
 * 'When browsing the sidebar one year has a question mark next to it': Minor c/e issue; question mark should have been removed in sandbox edit.
 * Question of literary quality of the text will be addressed soon. However, consulted off-wiki native English speaking advisers were less negative than Banime is.
 * Lack of sources is not necessarily a hindrance to promote an article to GA status. As indicated by Banime there are not that many sources available. Some alternative sources are available, but including these might easily constitute original research. We'll do our best.


 * I wasn't trying to be negative and sorry if I came across that way. I was trying to provide some constructive criticism for this article.  I believe it has potential, however I do not think that the article could have been fixed within the week if I put it "on hold".  Feel free to prove me wrong however and renominate it, and I will gladly review it again!  Just leave a note on my talk page and I'll see to it.  If you have any more questions or concerns about the article let me know.  Like I said above I believe it needs to be written a lot better, the format needs improvement, and if possible new sources need to be found.  --Banime (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)