Talk:Drexel 4257/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 13:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
I'm sorry for the delay. I'm now reviewing the article at this very moment, comments will follow. Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done a very quick read of the article and it appears to be at or about GA-level, but I've not checked any references or copyright statuses, so I'm going to carry out a full review. This means I'm going to work my way the article starting at the Historical context section and finishing with the WP:Lead and note any "problems" that I find here.


 * Historical context -


 * General and physical description -
 * This section appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.


 * Dating -
 * This section appears to be compliant.


 * Provenance -
 * This section appears to be compliant.


 * Organization -
 * There were several links in this section to disambiguation pages. I changed Robert Herrick to Robert Herrick (poet) (four times since he's also in the table, in three places) and John Suckling to John Suckling (poet). I think these are the correct destinations.

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, this section was OK.


 * Handwriting -
 * I added a copy of wikilinks, incipit & secretary hand, but this section is OK.

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Politics -
 * This section appears to be compliant.


 * Topical or literary content -
 * This section appears to be compliant.


 * Musical content and style -
 * Note: I wikilinked the technical terms: naturals, sharps and flats; I also moved the link from Dissonance, a disambiguation page, to Dissonance.
 * However, this section appears to be compliant.


 * Significance -
 * This section appears to be compliant.


 * List of songs & List of songs -
 * OK.

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Lead -
 * Quite a good summary/introduction, so compliant with WP:WIAGA.


 * Scope.
 * The General and physical description contains a lot of detail and its all verifiable via citations, so I've marked its fully compliant. However, there is a picture of the book in the infobox and its bound with what appears to be leather and/or buckram bindings. There is no comment on this, for instance is it known when and by whom this was done; nor on the size of the folios, instance 10 by 8 (inches) (yes, this is unlikely since the images show a folio that is roughly 2:1 on height:width), foolscap, etc? Pyrotec (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I deliberately left this out because it would be original research. But I had an idea:  If I get a picture of the binding date/binder's statement and upload it to Commons, then I can comment on it, right? -- kosboot (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be wrong of me to ask for information that would be OR. You can comment on information that is in the public domain. Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've now added it. - kosboot (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria An informative and well researched article.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Yes, and all taken by the nominator
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Yes, and all taken by the nominator
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I have no hesitation in awarding this article GA-status. I think that it has the makings of a WP:FAC, but I would draw attention to my comments above, i.e. "there is a picture of the book in the infobox and its bound with what appears to be leather and/or buckram bindings. There is no comment on this, for instance is it known when and by whom this was done; nor on the size of the folios, instance 10 by 8 (inches) (yes, this is unlikely since the images show a folio that is roughly 2:1 on height:width), foolscap, etc?". At GA, this is at best a minor uncertainty, and I've discounted it but I strongly suspect that it would be needed at FA. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)