Talk:Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine
Appearance
![]() | Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Book title
[edit]Should this article be moved to its English title? Meanwhile I am setting up a redirect. --Greenmaven (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oops!It's been done already! --Greenmaven (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- What are the conventions for this? The novel hasn't actually been translated into English, so the German title is the only 'official' title it has. I wouldn't be strongly opposed to a move, but if the WP conventions are neutral on this question, I think I'd prefer to keep the title of this article as it is. We offer a translation of the title in the infobox, and I don't think anybody would not be able to find it because it's listed under its original title (it's also not a very well-known novel). Your thoughts? Sindinero (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I guess you know that it can be reached by Wadzek's Struggle with the Steam Turbine. So I am in agreement to leave things as they are. I do not know what 'the convention' is in WP. My guess? — there isn't one! BTW I think the article is very well written. Happy Xmas --Greenmaven (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Eisfbnore (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
→
- Seems fine, I did a light copyedit for style and grammar; revert if you feel uneasy about it. 'Deludedly' does not appear in the dictionary, however.
- I've modified the sentence with "deludedly" - that word is in the OED, and isn't listed as archaic; sometimes adverbs formed from adjectives by adding -ly aren't in smaller dictionaries, but I've never met an adjective that couldn't be adverbialized. Sindinero (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your changes are good; I made one reversion (in the last section) where I felt that the participial (-ing) form does create a better flow and a tighter sentence. Sindinero (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Seems fine, I did a light copyedit for style and grammar; revert if you feel uneasy about it. 'Deludedly' does not appear in the dictionary, however.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- AGF for the off-line sources
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- 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:
- NPOV
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Stable
- 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:
→
- Could do with more information about copyright status, perhaps using {{Non-free media rationale}}; see here for a good example
- Since it was published in 1918, the cover might actually be public domain. I'll look into this and fix the licensing. Sindinero (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I've fixed this. From everything I've been able to understand, it is indeed in the public domain. If you prefer to be sure, we can wait a few days to see if anyone watching the licensing pages raises an objection, but as I understand it, all material published before 1923 is in the public domain. Sindinero (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since it was published in 1918, the cover might actually be public domain. I'll look into this and fix the licensing. Sindinero (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Could do with more information about copyright status, perhaps using {{Non-free media rationale}}; see here for a good example
- 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:
→
- Pass or Fail:
Eisfbnore talk 12:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I am passing it; congratulations with a good article! Eisfbnore talk 18:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)