Talk:Deseret alphabet/GA1

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

Reviewer: Yunshui (talk · contribs) 11:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Smashing article; I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. It's incredibly close to GA, I just have one minor concern about the use of sources (see below): However, the prose overall is excellent: readable, varied and interesting. The above are minor niggles, and so I'm happy to pass this for 1a. In terms of MOS compliance, I see a few instances of words to watch but most of these are correct in context; I would suggest perhaps reviewing the wording in instances where the opinions of the sources are used (e.g. or ) but in these cases the citations make the source of the opinion clear, so I see no reason not to pass on this account. In terms of the usage in the article, there are arguably several images that don't add much to the reader's understanding of the topic - for example, the wording for File:WikipediaTheFreeEncyclopedia-DeseretAlphabet.svg already appears in the xkcd image, and the Deseret text in File:Peoples Ticket, Salt Lake City, circa 1876, Mormons, front of.jpg is tangential to the image (and nonsensical to boot), though it would be a good example of Deseret being used decoratively if such a section were present in the article text. However, in a long article like this it's good to have images that break up the flow of text a bit.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are a couple of places where the wording is a little unclear (e.g.
 * - saw what on the wall?
 * - comma splice, should be "...isn't true; it was..."
 * - wording could use a bit of tweaking here, e.g. "by making literature in the standard orthography much more widely available; it made no sense to print one's own books locally when having them printed elsewhere and then delivered was so much cheaper".
 * - recommend splitting this into two sentences.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Generally speaking the sources are fine, but I'm a bit concerned with the way in which citations 33, 52, 53 and 54 are being used (current diff) - it seems like original research to suggest that the changes to the typeface can be verified simply by finding examples, especially when the examples are self-publihsed translations. Unless the CreateSpace books actively state that these changes were made (and the authors are noted as Deseret experts), these citations are a bit problematic. The text appears entirely original; copyvio detection only throws up matches for phrases like "Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints", so no problems there.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This is a wonderfully comprehensive article, very thorough in its coverage without getting overly sidetracked in minutiae.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Considering the subject matter's connection to a topic that many have strong feelings about, this is a nicely neutral piece of text. Differing viewpoints are presented without the reader being led to any particular opinion.
 * 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):
 * Most images are PD and thus perfectly fine.
 * File:1860 Utah $10 gold piece.jpeg looks to need a U.S. PD tag, but is otherwise tagged correctly.
 * File:Deseret malamanteau Wikipedia article.jpg is listed as CC-BY-SA 3.0, but the source actually lists it as CC-BY-NC 2.5, which is not suitable for Wikipedia. However, since the original image is available under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (the "sharealike" element of which prevents derivative works from being released under a more restrictive licence), I believe the CC-BY-NC licence is invalid, and so do not think this poses a problem for the image's use on Wikipedia.
 * File:Deseret malamanteau Wikipedia article.jpg is listed as CC-BY-SA 3.0, but the source actually lists it as CC-BY-NC 2.5, which is not suitable for Wikipedia. However, since the original image is available under CC-BY-SA 3.0 (the "sharealike" element of which prevents derivative works from being released under a more restrictive licence), I believe the CC-BY-NC licence is invalid, and so do not think this poses a problem for the image's use on Wikipedia.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Very nice bit of work by all concerned. As soon as the sourcing issue mentioned is addressed, I think this is ready to get the big green plus sign at the top.
 * The citation issue has now been resolved to my satisfaction; I'm happy to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations to all those involved. Yunshui 雲 水 12:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)