Talk:Pauline Green
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Pauline Green has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Pauline Green was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: November 29, 2007 |
[edit] Comments on Peer Review and GA nom Fail
- Wow, the Peer review attracted no commentary whatsoever other than an automated response. That throws the validity of the review into question.
- This article really needs very close re-reading, perhaps from WP:LoCE. As it stands at this precise moment, I could not pass it for GA... forex, there was orgininally no explanation of what santer is (I fixed it) .. and there are many grammatical errors such as confusing "contributed to" with "was attributed to" (I fixed it), spelling en masse incorrectly (I fixed that too), and this grammatical error (which i did not fix): " She was working in the West Hampstead division that she met and married PC Paul Green in 1971".
- Many problems with dashes, see WP:MOSDASH
- It could benefit from named refs... I did one for you ("The perils of Pauline")
- You really need to check the licensing of the images.. for example, you can't copyright something and release it under GFDL at the same time, as is the case for Image:PaulineGreen20050423 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg. The two licenses are mutually exclusive!
- Drop me a line if you have questions. If you believe this review was done inappropriately or dispute its conclusion, you can list the article at WP:GAR.
- Ling.Nut (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've checked the wikimedia Commons page of the user who uploaded the photograph of Pauline Green used in this article: their explanation of the GDFL/copyright situation is:
"It's confusing, but technically correct: having the copyright for a work is actually necessary for releasing it under a free license (or any license). If you do not have the copyright, you can't license it. "Copyleft" worls like this: I reserve all rights, and then grant everyone a lot of rights under a few conditions. If I would disclaim the copyright, I could not tell anyone the I want to be mentioned as the author, etc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonStrines (talk • contribs) 09:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Introduced the nasmed references where appropriate. Not doing anything with the dashes, as these seem consistent with the style guide quoted - specifically "Spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above. Spaced en dashes are used by several major publishers, to the complete exclusion of em dashes; style manuals more often prefer unspaced em dashes. One style should be used consistently in an article." JonStrines (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Automated peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please ensure the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tom (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 |
A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. |
