# Talk:Wadzeks Kampf mit der Dampfturbine

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)

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)
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

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: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
NPOV
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Stable
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)
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
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)