Talk:William T. Stearn/GA1

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

Reviewer: HalfGig (talk · contribs) 21:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The quality of refs is good but formatting is inconsistent; "General books and articles" has some retrieve dates, some done--books and articles don't need retrieve dates
 * True - articles with accessdates were articles on web - removed--Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Some "Websites" refs have publishers, some don't; all should have publishers.
 * That does not really work - many of the websites are publishers, or there is no information. Duplication would add unnecessary clutter. Publishers were added where available. Do you have specific examples?--Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I never saw it done like that IIRC. But you are consistent and that's the big thing. I just put in the publisher if it matches the web URL.   HalfGig   talk  23:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * NEW ONE "Geograph (2011). "Geograph". Geograph Project Limited." needs a retrieval date. All web refs need this so people can check the version you used, know when it was a live URL, etc.   HalfGig   talk  23:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done - yes, wanted to avoid duplication of names and hence clutter--Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * NEW TWO It appears Stearn never earned a university degree. Is this correct? If so, very impressive as to what he accomplished.   HalfGig   talk  11:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, one of the things he is famous for. When I came across the original stub and saw a string of degrees after his name, which I knew to be wrong, I was motivated to rewrite it and eventually develop it. This is now the most comprehensive biography of this man in the literature. (with the exclusion of personal anecdotes) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Image in the info box needs source, etc, not just a link to RU wiki; it also needs a FU rationale
 * Source provided on Russian WP added. It does have a paragraph addressing Fair use Rationale. Can you be more specific?
 * I did eventually manage to track down some more provenance information and converted the file information into a Non-free use rationale infobox, if that helps --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good work.   HalfGig   talk  23:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Natural History Museum London Jan 2006.jpg needs a date
 * Unsure what you mean here - in the caption? Why this image rather than others? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * over in its summary/description box on commons, it's empty. It's supposed to have the date the photo was taken, some mistakenly put in the date uploaded
 * Oh! Commons, I thought you meant the article. Yes, the date is is in the metadata - fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Epimedium alpinum (Flower).jpg needs a date
 * As above --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * over in its summary/description box on commons, it's empty. It's supposed to have the date the photo was taken, some mistakenly put in the date uploaded
 * fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agnes Arber circa 1916.jpg might be PD by now
 * Quite possibly. The original author does not supply any copywrite information. Are you suggesting any specific action? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's probably PD-life+70 now but we can't tell so I'd leave it alone  HalfGig   talk  23:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Quite possibly. The original author does not supply any copywrite information. Are you suggesting any specific action? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's probably PD-life+70 now but we can't tell so I'd leave it alone  HalfGig   talk  23:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: