Talk:Anna's Archive/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments2 people in discussion

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

Nominator: BruschettaFan (talk · contribs) 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Kovcszaln6 (talk · contribs) 12:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I will be reviewing this article within the next few days. This is my first time reviewing a GAN, so please excuse my mistakes. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(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]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Notes

↑ 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.
↑ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
↑ 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.

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	an injunction to curtail the site's operations One might interpret this as an injunction against the operation of the entire site (not just the scraping of WorldCat), however, the injunction is only against the scraping of WorldCat. Fixed. BruschettaFan (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No issues found here.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Passed.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Citation 8 seems to be a blog; but regardless, where it is cited, there are already 3 other citations, so I suggest removing this one. I considered it to be reliable since it's not self-published but published by the London Review of Books, a well-known literary magazine. BruschettaFan (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply It's fine then. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply OCLC, one of WorldCat's maintainers This implies that there are multiple maintainers of OCLC, but the cited sources doesn't seem to mention this. Either cite a source that verifies this, or just change it to something like "OCLC, WorldCat's maintainer" Fixed. BruschettaFan (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply	Pass
(c) (original research)	The article uses the word "censorship", however, the sources do not seem to explicitly state this. I thought that internet censorship ("the legal control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet") was an appropriate page to link to with regards to the site being blocked in various countries. The only similar page I can find is internet filter, but that isn't explicitly referenced in the sources either. Is there another wording you would prefer? BruschettaFan (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply I'd suggest "blocked". Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply Changed to "government blocks". BruschettaFan (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Nothing found.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	No issues here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	No problems here.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
See 2(c).	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
No signs of edit warring.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No issues here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	They're good.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The article passed. Thank you for your work and cooperation.

Discussion

[1] 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.

[2] Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.

[3] 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.

[4] 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.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] 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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]