Talk:Regine Olsen/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 22:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take this one on and will make the review over the weekend Mujinga (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Review
Hi I have to fail this article. It can be brought up to GA status in future I think, the potential is there, but it quickfails right now on more than one of the six criteria. I'm happy to go through what I found on a close reading of the article:


 * Well-written - FAIL
 * Spelling and grammar are not correct throughout, this article needs a copy edit, perhaps the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors could help
 * MoS guidelines should be followed more closely, for example the lead needs to be 3 or 4 paragraphs, not one, as per MOS:LEADLENGTH


 * Verifiable with no original research - FAIL
 * Unfortunately at the moment some of the references reads like original research eg "An edited account of Kierkegaard's relation to Olsen and her family, from the point of view of Kierkegaard, appears roughly around August 1849 in Journals, 49 X 5 A 149" eg " See: 1 Peter 4:7–12, The Holy Bible.) Kierkegaard decided to forgive Olsen so that his love might hide her sin from the eyes of God just as Christ's love hides our sin from the eyes of God."
 * Some quotes do not have inline references eg in the 'Kierkegaard's concern' section
 * The 'Olsen in Kierkegaard's writings' contains unreferenced claims
 * The 'In popular culture' section is completely unreferenced. I am not saying the section should go, i am saying it needs inline citations.


 * Broad - FAIL
 * I am seeing problems here as well, if this is about Regine Olsen we need to see why she herself is notable. We know Kierkegaard of course and there are some sources such as Garff writing a book length study of Olsen which confirm her notability, but right now the article has some long quotes from Kierkegaard and at times the article feels more about him than Olsen. Possibly a Peer review process could help refocus the article.

I'll stop here since the article is failing on all three of the criteria I have checked so far. In addition Earwig gives a high chance of possible copyvios, that might just be the big quotes causing problems but that needs checking too.

Conclusion
Sorry to bring bad news to DMT biscuit and the other contributors, but hopefully this article could be brought up to GA status with some work. Unfortunately the Danish article isn't in a good state so that can't be used as a guide here. WikiProject Women in Green would be a helpful place to ask for help if needed. Mujinga (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)