I've really enjoyed seeing your work on this article develop! Claiming, after ensuring my little touch ups before don't constitute my being a major contributor.
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Firstly, I am a comparatively hands-on reviewer, and will go ahead and change stuff as well as asking questions and pointing out issues. I know nominators can potentially be stressed out by that if they don't feel entirely on the same page, so please don't hesitate to revert or question anything I do! I tend to view GAN as a good time for two invested editors to really deliberate on higher-level improvements, even if not strictly necessitated by the GA criteria. Remsense ‥ 论18:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this up! I'm not picky about small details, so I probably won't care too much about any changes. I would ask for you to be clear about why you make the changes you do because I'd like to be capable of doing reviews in the future, but your edit summaries are usually pretty thorough.
I'm going to be slightly busy until Wednesday, so if there's any large issues, I may not be able to fix them them until after that, but I should still be able to do everything within the seven days (per WP:GAN/I#HOLD.) – Farkle Griffen (talk)18:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, you get rid of a lot of url's... I agree they are technically redundnant if theres a doi, but kinda prefer "url", since it links the title, which feels cleaner. Any chance those can stay? – Farkle Griffen (talk)01:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! You can make the doi link to the title by setting |doi-access=free—if indeed the resource is freely accessible (cf. H:CS1), if it's not the title probably shouldn't tease the idea of it in a link, is the idea I think. Remsense ‥ 论01:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are links to Springer, so not free unfortunately. Seems strange though... even if a resource isn't free I find it nice to have a link to exactly where the source was found, and a title link feels the cleanest. – Farkle Griffen (talk)02:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that CS1 treats title-link as free access by default (linking to Britannica or whatever), and one further specifies registration etc. restrictions. If you chose to do that, you'd most properly have both a redundant parameter (your choice!) but also a big honking red , showing |url-access=subscription. So the idealized choices are
BTW, in a couple of instances where the url was removed, the archive link (which is free) was also removed. Did you use a bot to do this? If not, why were those removed? – Farkle Griffen (talk)02:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're free also to (tell me to) put those back—I just find archives of generally robust repositories (e.g. GBooks) to be more clutter and hassle than they are worth, all else being equal. Remsense ‥ 论02:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gramix13: Looks like Remsense hasn't been active for about a week now. Last time this happened they said they had a family emergency. I'm willing to wait for them to come back unless someone else is willing to take over. – Farkle Griffen (talk)14:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass
Undetermined
, showing 