Talk:Thornwell Jacobs/GA2

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

Reviewer: Akrasia25 (talk · contribs) 18:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I will take this review on. Crypt of Civilization seems like a good starting point.--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see this Talk:Thornwell Jacobs/GA1

Observations -


 * The Lede is generally expected to be of two or three paragraphs.


 * Adult life could incorporate more material from Reference 1. It is a bit too thin.


 * It may be better to include (for your reader) who James Edward Oglethorpe is. A reader will have no idea of his significance until you tell them.


 * Reference 6 gives significant information about the University, its design, construction and re-founding. It is odd that the University is not mentioned more in this article.


 * The main part of this article appears to be principally about the Crypt of Civilization which has its own article.

Point (b) raises two issues. First, the article should avoid undue emphasis on tangents, such as coatracks, and trivia. The inclusion of details and minor aspects can contribute to good writing, but such details should not overwhelm the article. Second, the level of detail of each aspect of the topic should be appropriate to the article and kept in balance: where an aspect of the topic involves information which is or could be covered in more detail by another article, the article itself should summarize this information with suitable links, where appropriate.
 * My sense is that this article is an after-thought and tacked onto the Crypt for Civilisation. This article fails to be broad in its coverage and needs to include more detail from the life and works of Thornwell Jacobs. WP:GANOT point 3b gives the following guidance:


 * Thanks for review. Will start addressing these.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Review
The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, most authorship is one user, Doug Coldwell. Doug Coldwell has many GAs to his name. It is currently ranked a Start class article.

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All inline citations are from reliable sources;

It contained no original research;

I went through the references and found that they matched and are solid RS.

It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage

It addresses the main aspects of the topic;

It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

Images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Solid pass here. --Akrasia25 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)