Talk:The Bronze Horseman (poem)/GA1

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

I will be reviewing this article shortly. Otto4711 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is interesting and accessible, clearly written to allow for an understanding of the subject. Personally I actively loathe the construction "due to" instead of "because of" and encourage you to change it throughout, but I certainly would not fail the article because of it. The text skips back and forth between "Saint Petersburg" and "Petersburg" and it should be uniform throughout. Very minor thing, I would remove the words "of the poem" from the "Outline" header as redundant. I would also suggest renaming the section currently titled "Sources" to "Bibliography", just because you have a section within the article called "Sources and inspiration".
 * Several MoS issues. 1) The lead is far too short and superficial. Per WP:LEAD the lead should serve as a concise overview of the article. The current lead doesn't touch or barely touches on inspiration, publication, analysis or impact. Generally citations are not required in the lead so I would move the existing ones to the appropriate locations in the body. 2) The references within the text should be uniform. My preference is that books be referenced within the text simply as . If the work is being collected in another book, then . There is no need for the title to be included in the in-text reference if it's in this style. Another option is Harvard citations, but as long as they're uniform whatever style you prefer is fine. 3) All of the entries in the "Sources" section need to be reformatted so they match. See for example Bride of Frankenstein. 4) Miscellaneous: While I personally don't care that much, WP:DASH states that n-dashes should be used instead of hyphens. Space needed between the dash and "or" in Analysis paragraph three. Spaces needed between p. and page number in some references.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article includes notes and references sections. Some statements require citation. The founding of the city in the "Outline" section. The sculpting date and Pushkin's fascination and earlier PtG works in the "Sources" section. I would remove the word "unusual" when describing the formal structural blend as possibly OR/POV. The statue's coming to be known as "The Bronze Horseman" in the "Influence" section (which you can do by relocating current reference 2). Did the statue have a name before "The Bronze Horseman"? Include it and cite it.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * While the article maintains its focus, it needs expansion in some areas. The censorship faced by Pushkin prior to publication should be expanded upon. Who censored him and why? Did Pushkin protest or appeal the censorship? What changed between 1834 and 1837 that allowed for full publication? What sort of "adjustments" were required? The "Influence" section is very choppy and list-y. I would take the quote that you currently have in reference one and incorporate it into that section as part of the process of fleshing it out.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article is neutral and covers multiple analyses of the work.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Article is stable and free of edit warring.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The one image is appropriately tagged as public domain. The image has a caption but the wording is slightly awkward. I would suggest "Alexandre Benois's 1904 illustration of the poem" with no terminal period as the caption is not a complete sentence. If there is a PD image of the statue now known as the Bronze Horseman I believe the article would benefit from its inclusion but that is certainly not a requirement.
 * 1) Overall: On hold - the article needs a good bit of work to get it up to GA standards. I will place the article on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the review. Otto4711 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC) No improvements made to article so this fails GA. Please feel free to renominate once the above mentioned problems have been addressed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: