Talk:Just So Stories/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 00:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Sagecandor (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I have extended the lead as requested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2016

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 21, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Writing style is ... good, not great. Again, as stated below, the article can be significantly expanded with more research. But for now, it is "good". That's okay. It's a nice presentation for readers. But more can be done. I thank the nominator for expanding the intro section a bit more as I had asked.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Minor quibbles for easily verified things that are probably fairly obvious to the nominator but can use extra cites for future researchers and readers -- Cites needed for: End of the "Conext" section, everything in the "Adaptations" section, that's it. Both are almost just easily verified to their publication dates themselves, etc, but need to add a cite for each assertion to back them up.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: I'm thinking this article is ... okay for GA. It is "good". It is not "great". I'm going to pass this because I'm giving it a medium-bar for "good" article here for thoroughness. It's nice, it's concise, it's succinct, and it covers all major aspects. However, that being said, I think for featured article there is a LOT of room for improvement. I'm sure there are a TON more references out there discussing this work. The only major thing this article needs is a LOT more research. But for "good", for now, I'm saying it's okay covering major aspects with current sections.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Not seeing any major issues with neutrality, all assertions are backed up to cites appropriately.
 * 5. Stable? Edit history shows positive collaboration going back to May 2016. Talk page history shows only old stuff from 2006.
 * 6. Images?: 3 images used, 2 free-use on Commons, one fair use in infobox, all are fine.

"Good" article, yes. "Great" article, no. Good enough for "good article", yes. Needs some more research for further improvement. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Sagecandor (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the review! When I'm back at base with a normal keyboard I'll follow up on your suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)