- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Glass/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a promising and well-structured article of a good length on a major topic.
However I note that the previous review failed because many citations were missing. They still are. I also notice that many book citations are lacking a page= (or pages=) parameter. I'd also note that the structure with "History of silicate glass" in the middle, and a bizarre list subsection "Chronology of advances in architectural glass", is curious, followed as it is by a list of "Other types", with a "Gallery" section which again is historical, though dates and provenance will be needed for each image (e.g. the Uranium glass cake stand is apparently by Adolf Patera, 19th century). The history should clearly cover all types of glass at least briefly, and the images should be close to the text that they illustrate, so quite a bit of new writing and some restructuring will be necessary.
However, before I go into any kind of detail on this review, I would like to know nom's intention and plans for filling these gaps, e.g. to work on it step by step each day for ten days, and to see this plan being put into action. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I have attempted to elicit a response. I am happy to review this if and when you (or anyone else, actually) feel like having it reviewed and choose to reopen it. Until then, this is closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap:, I'm not the GA nominator, but I'm happy to help address some of these issues. Was your intention that you want them addressed before you continue your review? Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be best. The GA instructions make it clear that reviewers can quick-fail a nomination if many citations are missing, for example. I suggest you check and update the article against this and the earlier review, then nominate it and ping me, and we should be able at that point to complete the GA process without much complication. I'm happy to work through things at GAN but there's not a lot of point starting with known problems. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Chiswick Chap:, I've re-nominated this article for GA review. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hello. The reason why your comments failed to elicit responses was that the writer of a large part of this article (it was a major tidy-up, really) had got pissed off, and gone on Sabbatial.
- I'm back. The bits that you are likely to delete are pobably mine. Go ahead. You might feel like changing the form of the whole article. Be my guest!
- My main area of expertise is architectural history.
- If you delete the section n developments in building glass, the best thing to do, so that no-one gets cross, is to reformulate it into a list with boxes and pictures, as a separate article specifically of list form. There are peopl who love making lists, and once you have done it, others will add to it.
- I don't think it is quite ready for a GA review yet.
- Amandajm (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Amandajm: The article is already under review, you are commenting on a closed review page. Polyamorph (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.