Talk:Marco Kartodikromo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 03:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well done! --Tea with toast (話) 23:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

While I am satisfied that this article meets the criteria for GA, there are few things that might benefit the article moving forward:

• The first sentence "Further career..." section: "Kartodikromo was soon chosen by Goenawan...". The word "soon" is ambiguous, and it would be better to put a more precise date on that.

• Sadly none of my sources have a date. They have a nearly 2-year gap in which it could have happened.

• I feel the "Themes and styles" section could be expanded. Throughout the "Further career..." section, there is not much information given for each of the written works that Kartodikromo authored. I think it would be good to elaborate on these, especially if they were contributing factors for his imprisonment.

• Agree. I'll try and do that when my current project is finished. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• One of the categories listed is apparently non-existent (red link). While this may not be a problem if the category is to be created in the future, I just thought I'd mention it in case it was a typo (from my investigation, I couldn't find any categories that would replace it, I just thought I'd mention it).

• Removed. I seem to remember something about not having redlink categories in the MOS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 23:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)