Talk:Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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 June 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Certainly. There are some minor points, some places where the word "also" could be dropped (I suppose that sort of thing could be hashed out in greater depth in a peer review). I like how each subsection is sort of a standalone piece, with the reception given within that subsection instead of in its own section of the article.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Meticulous citing and referencing, in an appropriate format which is easy to follow.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Indeed. One thing I feel is missing perhaps for further improvements but that does not preclude GA status is a discussion and subsection on "Aftermath" or "Legacy", discussing how this work as impacted literature, later works, societal perceptions of women, etc.
 * I'm not sure how this work affected other works. The small amount of scholarship written on it does not say. Sorry! Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, quite an acceptable response. I encountered this difficulty myself actually with an WP:FAC about a book, it is simply the case that it is impossible to address Aftermath/Legacy if this has not been discussed in a search of secondary sources, so I wholeheartedly agree with you there. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be written in a neutral manner.
 * 5. Article stability? Basically one significant contributor going back to article's creation on 18 May, no problems in edit history, and no discussion on the talk page yet so no problems there either.
 * 6. Images?: 4 images are used in this article. All are on Wikimedia Commons, so excellent there.

Small side note, if the work itself is public domain, then instead of or in addition to providing a link to Google Books in the External links section, you could also upload a copy of the PDF itself to Wikimedia Commons and put commons in the EL section.
 * Since the Google Books version is a copy of the pirated American version, I am not all that excited about doing it. I would rather wait for a London edition. The pirated version is incomplete and I'm not sure what other changes were made. Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah quite. In that case the current way you have it seems fine. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work overall, quite an interesting read. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Cirt (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)