Talk:Werner Erhard (book)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Criterion 1: well-written

Minor issues that won't get in the way of passing. I'll list some in case you want to make any changes:

1. The first "(est)" is not italicize but the later one is. The "est" on its own is not italicized. This should probably be standardized in one way. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

2. "Overall it did not receive a positive reception in secondary sources, and is seen as a hagiography." - the comma is out of place unless you add "it is" instead of just "is". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

3. You use "--" (two hyphens). I have no problem with that as that was an easy way to make the — dash. However, some people might pounce. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

4. You don't use a comma in "Writing in Noseweek " but one for "Writing in Westword,". You also miss a comma after "writes" in "Jonathan Lieberson writes ". Someone at FAC might make a big deal about such little things. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable

With reliance on quotes, I have no qualms saying that this is verifiable and accurate. The uses appear to be relied on in a strong manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 3: broad in its coverage

Many sources and I do not see anything concerning. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 4: neutral

Many, many sources that appear to establish this as neutral. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 5: stable

Appears to be stable. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images

Three images - 1 fair use with strong rational. 1 with suitable (from what I can tell) rational for commons. 1 image box with text. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Response

Thanks very much to Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) for the detailed review. Per the GA Review comments, I addressed the points made from the first subsection, above: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Cirt (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)