Talk:Education in Wales/GA2

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. Sorry the first review didn't work out. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright violations found by Earwig. I will also do a manual check for copyvio issues, but copyvio like the two examples below could lead to an instant failure to pass GA, per the criteria. @Llewee:, please fix these in the next 48 hours or the review will not pass. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ganesha811 and thankyou for reviewing this article. Sorry about the copyright issues, the first is text which has been here since the first time I read the article, the second is some overly close paraphrasing on my part. I have tried to fix paragraphs.--Llewee (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response and for fixing the copyvio issues. I will continue on to the rest of the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I've messed around with the text quite a bit this evening. I'll leave it alone for a while so you can review a stable version. Please feel free to @ me if any problems need to be dealt with.--Llewee (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I'll review the article as it presently exists. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee, I think addressing the source issues in their entirety will result in some significant changes to the article, so take a look and address the issues below, and then I'll continue on to the other sections of the review. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ganesha811, I am probably not going to be able to address this review for a couple of weeks. I've got another review to finish off and a couple of things to sort in real life by the end of this month. I'm sorry about the delay.--Llewee (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, life is busy for all of us and we're all volunteers here. That is a while, though, so I'm not sure about how best to handle this. Tell you what, I'll put the review on hold until June 7th. If you can get to it before then, great! If you haven't been able to address these comments by then, I'll close it out at that point and you can renominate whenever works best for you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee, I'm closing this review due to inactivity. Feel free to re-nominate it, of course, but I would recommend addressing the sourcing and other issues below first to avoid a quickfail on future reviews. It's too bad you couldn't get back around to this one in time, but happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some of the sources need real attention and cleanup. Current source #13 (Records of the Welsh department) has a ton of repeated parameters. The Reitan book could use a publisher and maybe a chapter title. Source #14 and Source #2 are the same (history of devolution). #17 needs a source name (BBC) (labour routs...). Source #20 (Reynolds) is improperly formatted, most info is contained within the url-link, it should be separate parameters. Etc etc. That's just in the first 20. Please go through all the sources and fix those and similar issues. It will be some work but it's needed for GA standard!
	2b. 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).	What is the case for the Powys Digital History Project being a reliable source? I'm not convinced by what I can find, so would welcome your perspective. Same question for Oxford Royale. GOV.WALES should generally be cited as the specific department or organization that produced the page in question, or 'Government of Wales'. What suggests that daynurseries.co.uk is a reliable source? Cite #60 is a deadlink and the organization (fforwm) appears to no longer exist or have been renamed. I would suggest finding a different source. Please make a case for the reliability of thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk. Overall, highly reliant on government sources and the BBC. While this is largely understandable, it would be helpful to have more independent academic sources throughout the article, as well as scholarly books by reliable authors.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds two copyright violations, one especially clear. Here's the first and the second. On the second, the violation is actually more extensive than Earwig indicates, with a lot of borrowed phrasing scattered throughout the relevant paragraphs. These issues need to be fixed immediately. These issues have been addressed; hold for manual copyright check against other sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Is there a more up-to-date source for literacy than 2003?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.