Talk:Either/Or/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment No problems when checking against quick fail criteria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * This reasonably well written, but consider copy-editing to improve clarity and make it more accessible for a wider audience. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * I'm not keen on the use of colour highlighting for quotes, but I would suggest toning down the red/pink colour. Article accords with MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * References #24 and #32 are broken links. A large number of links to published books lack page numbers. This is fine when the reference is to the entire work but not when individual statements are cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Citations appear to be to reliable sources, good faith is assumed for print sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * I suspect some OR. Many statements, e.g. Ultimately however, Either/Or stands philosophically independent of its relation to Kierkegaard's life., Either/Or was translated into English in 1944; however, several of Kierkegaard's later works had already been translated, making Kierkegaard's first great book one of the last to be translated for an English reading audience. Please cite or clarify. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * OK
 * b (focused):
 * OK
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * OK
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * OK
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * OK
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the reassessment on hold whilst the point above are addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, looks like the points above are fixed. If you wished to take this to featured article status I think re-writing in clearer English would help. GA status confirmed Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am placing the reassessment on hold whilst the point above are addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, looks like the points above are fixed. If you wished to take this to featured article status I think re-writing in clearer English would help. GA status confirmed Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)