User:Bfigura/Scratch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Obnoxious banner
| Attention students: Before you submit your article, please ensure that it does not duplicate content already on Wikipedia. Articles must be neutral, verifiable, and free of original research or synthesis. For help getting started, please see these helpful tips. Articles that don't meet these guidelines will likely be deleted. Consider starting a draft in your userspace by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YOURUSERNAME/DraftTitle. Thank you. |
[edit] GAN Notes
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- (1) A few small issues on wikilinks: In the The Plantard Plot section, this: underground culture of esotericism wikilink seemed somewhat unclear. Looking at the linked page, I'm not sure if there is a better though. I have a similar issue with Great King link. It doesn't appear to link to a relevant concept, and I can't find a more appropriate article to link it to. (2) In the second paragraph of the same section, there's a reference to a "lost king", but no detail. Can this be explained, or linked? (3) The only other issue some might raise is the "In Popular Culture" section. However, in this article, the section is short, selective, and well-sourced, which I think is fine by consensus.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- In the "The Da Vinci Code" section: "For the dramatic structure of The Da Vinci Code, Brown chose to replace the Knights of Malta with the Roman Catholic prelature Opus Dei, as the Assassini-like nemesis of the Priory of Sion, in order to capitalize on controversies about Opus Dei." This sounds too speculative to be unsourced. Is this from an interview, or...?
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- see above.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- The sentence "However, re-interpreting the Dossiers Secrets in the light of their own interest in undermining the Roman Catholic Church's institutional reading of Judeo-Christian history, the authors asserted..." in the "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" section seems a bit strong to state without a source. It would probably be more neutral if there was a source to establish that the authors had an agenda. (Not that I doubt such a source exists, but it would be good if this line was cited. Does the sources cited in the sub-article for this line speak to this point?).
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No evidence of anything but constructive editing in history over the last few months.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- On hold pending sources for the issues raised in sections (2) and (4). Overall, a great article that does a good job of giving the proper weight to academic consensus while including minority views in an appropriate manner. However a few sentences probably require sourcing.--Bfigura (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
