Talk:Jack and Jill/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll review this article shortly! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it's an interesting article with lots of potential but it would be improved by adding more information and avoiding the passive voice.


 * review
 * "The rhyme is known to date back to at least the 18th century and exists with different numbers and variations of additional verses" - The rhyme dates back at least to the 18th century ..."? - who knows it? Per WP:WEASELWORDS.
 * ✅ - I took out the redundancy.-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Jack & Jill in the act of tumbling down, according to William Wallace Denslow" - do you mean as illustrated by?


 * "It has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 10266." - what is the importance of this?
 * The Round index number is the standard way of cataloguing a folk song, so basically it establishes that it is a unique song. It would take a long time (and be rather repetitive) to explain this for every nursery rhyme (or folk song) on Wikipedia. Readers can find about this by clinking on the link.-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The first and most commonly repeated verse is ... " explain who said it is first, when, etc.
 * That is in the meanings and origins section.-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * too much use of the passive voice.
 * e.g. "The rhyming of "water" with "after" has been taken to suggest that the first verse may date from the first ..." all of these instances should say who says this.
 * I added the Opie's names. Not sure what the other instances are: if its is explanations about Charles I and Louis XIV, then no one knows who first suggested those explanations.-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Under "Interpretation" - those should be complete sentences.
 * ✅-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "However, the woodcut that accompanied the first recorded version of the rhyme " - what was this? who recorded it?
 * Again, that information is in the origins section.-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In general, rather than brief sentences in the passive voice, the article would be improved by providing more information.
 * What sort of information do you have in mind?-- SabreBD  (talk)  23:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(I may add more later.) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - ok, just a few things:
 * "several variations. Several theories" - could you vary the wording?
 * ✅-- SabreBD  (talk)  15:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "It has a Roud Folk Song Index number of 10266" - you could put a short explanation in as you gave above. Especially in such a short article, the reader shouldn't have to do a lot of clicking especially in the lede.
 * ✅ - I put a brief addition in the lead and then a fuller one in the text with a citation.-- SabreBD  (talk)  15:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * reply
 * "classifies the song as 10266" - this means it's the 10266 most frequently mentioned, or what?
 * also, could you just add a few more sentences to the lede per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)