Talk:The Fountainhead/GA2

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 20:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I know I was the GA reviewer on the first GA review. I see it's had a lot of work and effort on improvement since then, including a peer review. I'll re-read over the first review, take a look at the peer review, and take a look at the state of the article in comparison to the prior GA review. I'll read all that over and post up a review later. (Mind you, some of above-noted pages, histories, and changes, I've been looking over before, as I noted in my comment on the article's talk page at Looking much better.) Sagecandor (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

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 July 27, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows no problems in a general comparison search. When compared with http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/summary.html - also shows no problems. There are a few links to fix as noted at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=The_Fountainhead -- that can be something for future improvements.
 * 2. Verifiable?: The introduction satisfies WP:LEADCITE. It also is a good size per WP:LEAD. The plot summary is alright as is, per WP:PLOTSUMMARY. The rest of the article has excellent in-line citations and the referencing style of Template:Harvard citation type format is good.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: For featured article some sections could be expanded more. For good article the article is thorough enough as is. Article goes over Introduction, Plot, Major characters, Howard Roark, Peter Keating, Dominique Francon, Gail Wynand, Ellsworth Toohey, Themes, Individualism, Architecture, Philosophy, History, Backrground and development, Publication history, Reception and legacy, Critical reception, Responses to the rape scene, Impact on Rand's career, Cultural influence, Adaptations, Illustrated version, Film version, Television version, Theatrical version. (The "version" can be removed from these subsection header titles). Section that could be expanded with more research include: Philosophy, Critical reception, Illustrated version, Television version, Theatrical version.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Article is refreshingly neutral point of view in its presentation and writing style. Wording style is matter of fact. Article satisfies WP:NPOV. More specifically, sections: Critical reception, and, Responses to the rape scene, present sourced critical commentary. Research has clearly been done to present the article topic from multiple perspectives. Well done on WP:NPOV overall.
 * 5. Stable? There was a major addition, followed by a major revert, on 21 June 2017. No major talk page discussion about this. This did not result in a major conflict and no major ongoing edit wars. Article stable for over one month.
 * 6. Images?: Eight images used in the article in total. The fair use image used in the infobox has a great and detailed fair use rationale for its use. The others are all from Wikimedia Commons and have good licenses there.

Good job! Good improvements from the prior GA review! Good work improving the page since then! Good job addressing the points from the prior GA review and good job with the research that went into work on the article! 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) 05:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)