Talk:István Szabó/GA2

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 23:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Items that need to be addressed
Hello, I have just started my review, and I have already noticed a few issues that will need to be taken care of if this article is to pass.


 * 1) If you click on the "External links" link in the toolbox, you will find that there are 2 dead or misplaced links in the article. Please fix these.
 * 2) Also in the toolbox is "disambig links"; there is one link to a disambiguation page that needs to redirected to its appropriate page.
 * 3) The citation style needs to reformatted. There are many citations that are incomplete, and overall it is not well organized. Please see WP:CITE to learn how to properly cite sources. Simply citing "Paul" to refer to a book previously cited is not complete. You need to site the author, the year, and the page number for all of those. Because you incorporate many book citations where you are referencing different page numbers at different points, I would suggest using a citation style that organizes those references. Here are some examples of biographical articles that use different types of citation styles that would work nicely here: Marco Kartodikromo, Anna Akhmatova.

I will be continuing to review this article over the weekend and I may find more issues to be addressed, but I will encourage you to get started on the above issues because the article cannot be passed until they are taken care of. Thanks and happy editing! -- Tea with toast  (話)  23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Tea with toast, will do.Hirschjoshua (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So I think I've addressed your concerns, except that, rather than entirely reformat the citations, I've simply added information to the citations that previously contained the author's name only. I used MLA style, which is what I'm most familiar with. I see that the articles you suggested as models use the list-of-sources format. I used that originally, but removed it at one point when I had to add a lot more in-line citations. I can see where it might make the references slightly more user friendly, but I'm wondering whether it's necessary for Good Article status. Sorry, I don't mean to be stubborn. I used to be an academic, and have been enjoying the non-academic's freedom from such strict citation rules. Anyway, thanks again for reviewing.Hirschjoshua (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Hirshjoshua, thank for fixing some of the references. In order to satisfy Good aritcle criteria #2a, references must be properly cited. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should strive to be up to academic standards. Of course, Good Articles do not have to meet the more strict WP:Featured article criteria, but minimum standards exist. I do require proper citations when I review articles since verifiability is a core content policy for wikipedia.
 * For the references section, I will yield to you that it may not necessary to have a separate "Sources" section for this article. One thing that I think you should use to help organize the section is named references. Please see that link to learn how to do them. Thanks! -- Tea with toast  (話)  21:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, will do.Hirschjoshua (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Done.Hirschjoshua (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Well done! Please see further comments below.
 * 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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Well done! Please see further comments below.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Well done! Please see further comments below.

Nice work with the article, and thank you for cleaning up the citations. While the article meets all the criteria for GA status, I would like to recommend a few changes that could further improve the article. I think the biggest area for improvement is the lead section. Those would be the biggest things to take care of if you intend to take this article further to an FA nomination. Thank you for nominating this article; it has been a pleasure to read. -- Tea with toast  (話)  15:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The second sentence is a bit ambiguous since it suggests that he has been internationally famous since the 1960s, but it seems from the article that he was not internationally recognized until later in his career.
 * The second to last sentence is a bit clunky and could be better worded to improve comprehension.


 * Thank you, Tea with toast, much obliged. Very happy.Hirschjoshua (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)