Talk:Rachel Rising/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 02:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Good article nomination on hold
[edit]This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Writing quality is good, but the WP:LEAD seems a little skimpy, I'd add a bit more here from both plot and reception. The plot in the intro could very briefly summarize a beginning, middle, and end. Can you add a few more sentences for plot and reception, such that each is its own paragraph in the intro? Maybe this will be helped also if you can expand the reception info in the article itself a little bit more with a couple more sources?
- I added more to the plot paragraph to include a full summary. I also added another sentence to expand on the reception and mention awards, but it's not enough to sustain a paragraph yet. I may expand it more once I find more reception sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argento Surfer (talk • contribs)
- 2. Verifiable?: Good citations for everything and the plot section doesn't really need cites if you are just summarizing from the book, and the plot is nice.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Can you find a few more sources for reception?
- I will look for some, but it may take a day or two. Are you looking for anything specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argento Surfer (talk • contribs)
- 4. Neutral point of view?: I'm not seeing a problem with neutrality here, it's a pretty basic presentation about a book.
- 5. Stable? No edit wars or talk page conflicts.
- 6. Images?: You can use {{Non-free use rationale book cover}} to improve the image page for the book cover.
- done.
Nothing major here, a few tweaks and then respond and should be all set for this one.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Sagecandor (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I hope to address the one remaining issue very soon. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, as soon as possible is best, let me know if you can poke around and do some research soon ? If you did some good faith efforts but can't find anything, Argento Surfer, that's okay too. Sagecandor (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sagecandor, I've added another sentence to the reception section noting the aggregate review scores for the omnibus collection. After browsing through the various reviews, I don't see anything worth adding that isn't already included there. Thanks for looking this one over. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Argento SurferPass, with my thanks for the additions to the body and intro. Sagecandor (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sagecandor, I've added another sentence to the reception section noting the aggregate review scores for the omnibus collection. After browsing through the various reviews, I don't see anything worth adding that isn't already included there. Thanks for looking this one over. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, as soon as possible is best, let me know if you can poke around and do some research soon ? If you did some good faith efforts but can't find anything, Argento Surfer, that's okay too. Sagecandor (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)