Talk:William Blake/GA1

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

I have started a review of this article, but it will take me several days to complete. Awadewit (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What is a good article?
A good article is&mdash;
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).

Comments
1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;  and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Well written - attractive, readable and authoritative - though some sections, such as Death are poorly structured and would benefit from editing.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;  and (c) it contains no original research.
 * There are a number of sources used and cited, but there are statements such as "Within these drawings Blake found his first exposure to classical forms" and "his early work displays knowledge of Ben Jonson and Edmund Spenser." that don't have inline cites.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;  and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Coverage of his actual work, especially Songs of Innocence and of Experience and Jerusalem is fairly non-existent. The section on Religious views relies too much on long extracts - and this section overall might be considered rather extensive for the aims of the article.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Religious views and Assessment need careful examination.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * There's evidence of IP attacks - though uncertain without investigation if this is due to a content dispute or simple vandalism

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;  and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Some lovely images.


 * Starting to add my observations to Awadewit's.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, authoritative and readable lead section. Though would value Blake's leading works being identified. Good range of referencing, though there are statements that need cites, and - though not required - would be helpful to link to texts via Google Books. What are the criteria for the selection of books on Blake? The section on critical response and Blake's legacy and impact (Assessment) is very short and incomplete. In contrast the in_popular_culture section has grown to become a breakout article, though no summary has been created. There is little examination of his work. Though initially attractive, there is much found wanting in a brief examination. The article was started in 2001 and has had a number of editors, and some short spells of vandalism. There doesn't appear to be a firm hand on the article, and the nominator User:Jacjohncoles has done little on Wikipedia other than nominate the article and disappear. I suspect at this stage that this article requires too much work, and no obvious editor to do the work, to have a realistic chance of passing the criteria within a reasonable time span.
 * Initial inspection.

There are various issues with this that will need further examination, however the main concern is that it is incomplete without an examination of Blake's major works. I am concerned that the nominator is not available to work on the issues. I will put this on hold for 7 days to see if there is any progress. If there is no progress after that time, I will inform Awadewit and close the review.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusion.
 * No progress has been made. This article has not passed GA.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)