Talk:Francis William Reitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Francis William Reitz has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
April 16, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article
Flag of the United Kingdom.svg

Untitled[edit]

This article uses British English dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.


GA status[edit]

Congratulations on achieving Good Article status. This article is well written and gives comprehensive information about a relevant historical figure from South Africa. Nice and rare photographs added, good links to Wikisource. Makeshift Thackery (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Francis William Reitz/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Upgraded quality from Stub to B in conformity with independent rating to B in ProjectBiography.Makeshift Thackery (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

====GA review==== Article has been peer reviewed and satisfactorily upgraded and copy-edited, then nominated for GA-status. Checklist:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:|
{{{overcom}}}|}}
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1acom}}}|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1bcom}}}|}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2acom}}}|}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2bcom}}}|}}
    C. It contains no original research: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6bcom}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}


Makeshift Thackery (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)