Talk:Encyclopedism/GA1

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 15:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am going to have to fail this article as a GAN at this juncture. The following areas particularly concern me, and prevent the article from meeting the necessary GA criteria: Despite the fact that this article must be failed at this point, I understand that the account which nominated this as a GAN has only been active on Wikipedia for about a month, and thus it may be that the individual behind that account is a 'newbie' to the Wikipedia process. Given this, I hope that the nominator will not be put off by the failure of the nomination at this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede is excessively long and poorly structured. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many incidents of unreferenced sentences and paragraphs throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of the citations are purely to primary sources, potentially non-RS websites, and such like. There has been little or no use of academic studies on encyclopedism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope this review is a joke of some kind. The comments on sourcing don't survive even a glance at the article's reference section. The main source for the article is the book Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Yes, this is definitely an "academic study." I am impressed that even though the review was completed in only nine minutes, the reviewer still found time to check my edit history and comment on it. 10W40 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have shortened the lede, made other improvements, and resubmitted the article. 10W40 (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)