Talk:Red/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've have a quick read through and this is a very interesting article. It will probably make GA this time round, but some work will be needed in at least a couple of sections. The Pigments section is merely a tabulated list of wikilinks and is devoid of text. I would have expected some discussion (its not going to make GA as it is) of pigments, possibly starting with natural (mineral and animal based) pigments and then going on to synthetic (oil-based) pigments; possibly paints, varnishes, stains, etc - but I will cover that in more detail later. I think that the photographic section (well one paragraph) is rather thin - but I will also cover that in more detail latter.

I will now be starting a detailed review, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.

To clarify my points above, this article is quite close to being a GA so I'm not going to quick fail it; but I'm not accepting Pigments, for instance in its current state. This review is likely to take at least a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Detailed comments

 * The article is quite readable, is well-illustrated and stylised; and purports to cover a wide area of science and technology. On that basis is "appears" to be GA-material, but on detailed review I'm having reservations.
 * I will now highlight some of the "problems"; these are listed in order, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. As such, this part of the review tends to be somewhat negative; but the strong and the good points will be covered by the end of the review.


 * Etymology and definitions -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - Only the first two sentences have citations.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - The sentence: "The word is also obviously associated with anything of the color occupying the lower end of the visible light spectrum, such as red hair or red soil." appears to be a point of view.


 * In science -
 * Colorimetry, color science, vision, and photography-
 * Whilst this subsection is entitled "Colorimetry, color science, vision, and photography" it provides some wishy-washy statements that are not always substantiated by the citations attached to the sentences (where provided) and no detailed discussion of the topics is given.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - This section could, perhaps, do with a good copy edit. The first paragraph starts off with vision of red light, moves to IR light and then CD lasers and returns to rod cells in human eyes. I suggest that you discuss eyes first and then consider other systems, such as photography, making the point that photographic media "sees" colour differently to the human eye.
 * Surprisingly, as this is red, no mention of colour blindness appears.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - I'm not convinced that the "colour" of the laser is important, wavelength is the important factor as that determines data packing density - colour is incidental to wavelength, not the other way round.
 * In the first paragraph, the statement "Red light is also used to preserve night vision in low-light or night-time situations, as the rod cells in the human eye aren't sensitive to red" is not substantiated by ref 10, which is an article about stargazing.
 * Read paragraph 8, "Sensitize Your Eyes".--Ipatrol (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my comments below. Pyrotec (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't jump straight into rod cells, if you're going to talk about sight discuss it properly, (see Green for instance).
 * Night vision covers a number of possible applications, here I assume that it is used (on the basis of the citation and the piped wikilink to Adaptation (eye)) in the context of stargazing. Night vision can also refer to devices used to "see" in the dark and this article does not clarify which application it refers to, neither does it acknowledge the ambiguity. More importantly, it merely states: "Red light is also used to preserve night vision" with no explanation of how red light is used.
 * The following sentence claims to be substantiated by a web page that appears to be a Grade 3, 4 Educator's Reference Desk Lesson Plan.
 * The middle paragraph is unreferenced; it appears to be an opinion biased towards computer monitors and television screens and repeats itself; but no explanation of why/when computer monitors and television screens might need correcting.
 * Various color systems, spaces and models are wikilinked in both the first and second paragraphs, but there is no discussion of colorimetry and why it might be important. There is no real discussion of topics where/when colour matching / colour consistency is important (use as paints, wall coverings, etc) but the use of a tradename such as "post box red", "signal read", etc, might to adequate as a colour description.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - The third paragraph is unreferenced. It appears to be a number of "photographic" sentences strung together with a "red theme" with little or no understanding or explanation of why red light" produces the stated effect.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In nature -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - The M-stars sentence in the first paragraph is unreferenced.
 * In the second paragraph, only the first sentence is referenced. The rest is, perhaps, opinion. A verifiable source aught to be cited.


 * Symbolism -
 * Sin, guilt, pain, passion, blood and anger & Courage and sacrifice -
 * Two of the better subsections - well written and well referenced.


 * Warning -
 * Not a bad subsection, but a bit uninformed. It states "Because of this, scientists have repeatedly recommended red for warning signals, labels, and signs.". Yes, but in some regions red for danger/warning signs has been mandatory for several decades, under heath and safety legislation, yet the article makes no mention of this legal requirement.


 * In religion and metaphysics -
 * The first paragraph is entirely unreferenced. It as added by an editor who is adding similar sections to the other colour articles under the editor summary: "Restore complete religion section" - I'm not yet sure whether this is an edit war in progress.
 * The final claim in the second paragraph, about Islam, aught to have a citation. Pyrotec (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Eastern and African traditions -
 * Generally well referenced.


 * Geography, sports and politics -
 * In sports -
 * A three-sentence paragraph. Yes, all three sentences may be correct. However, in some sports, such as football rules don't allow a game to play if both sides a wearing the same colours - so one team (or perhaps both) has to change to its second colours. This aught to be covered.


 * Flags -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) - The second paragraph is unreferenced; as is the final paragraph.


 * Food and drink -
 * This is merely a list, with no explanation of why they are red, i.e. reason and purpose.


 * Fabric -
 * I don't see the point of this paragraph. Substitute "green", "pink", "orange" for "red" and the paragraph remains valid, there is nothing here that is uniquely "red"ness.


 * Pigments -
 * This is merely an alphabetical list, with no consideration of the "pigments", i.e which are mineral, which are natural and which are man-made. No consideration of properties such as staining power, brightness, light-fastness, etc.
 * Perhaps I need to clarify my comments. I was expecting an expansion of this list into text. Green, as far as I'm award is the only colour GA and it has quite a good subsection of this topic at In minerals and chemistry. Alizarin (in the list) was an "old" plant derived dye, the ochre and the red lead were obviously mineral and has uses in protecting metal (well iron & steel) from rusting. Synthetic dyes links into fabrics, processed foods, paints etc. This section should have been expanded as per Green - which also covers pyrotechnics (which I find interesting) and gemstones (lasers - already mentioned).
 * There can be risks involved in "clearing" actions by cutting the scope, you could fall foul of WP:WIAGA rule 3(a). Pyrotec (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * Just about adequate as an Introduction and summary, but could do with some expansion.


 * That this point I'm putting the review On Hold. The article has the potential to make GA, but needs proper referenced; and, in some subsections, expansion of details. The article Green is a Good Article, and I suggest that a look be taken at it for inspiration.

Pyrotec (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as progress is being made, I'm fairly flexible about the Hold period, but if the article justs sits there, it will fail. Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply by Nominator
I see your points and I will work today on those points. I have some new citations compiled and I request you look again on UTC Monday.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Still working. I got an unexpected suprise from work.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Though I removed a line, most of the second paragraph of the nature section simply speaks of what animals are red. That they are in fact red is quite clear from their title and the intros of those pages, so I felt that citations there would simply be gratuitous.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the flags section references those references in another artice by using "see". The last one states what can merely be confirmed by a quick glance of those articles.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not acceptable as a means of validating statements in wikipedia articles (so regardless of whether its a "see" or a wikilink, it does not count). Pyrotec (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

This article deserves to be a GA, but progress has stalled. I'm therefore closing this review: GA-status is not being awarded. Pyrotec (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)