Talk:Jacobite succession/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 14:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will gladly review this :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

General notes

Several citations need more information. For instance, the BBC History ones lack the author names as well as dates. You could also add archive links to make sure they don't turn into dead links in the future.

Lead

The lead could state more instantly, in the first paragraph, what the actual issue is and what Jacobites are. The issue of religion should be noted here already.

Stuart claims in exile

Ref 13 should not be mushed together into one. Also needs more information on the source (date, author etc)
Note 1 is missing a source.
Ref 18 has a "-" but no page number until which it spans. Also, if more than one page, it needs to be "pp".
Same thing in ref 19.

Line of succession after the Stuarts

Ref 32 gives me a dead link.

Will do some more spotchecks on the sources, but feel free to tackle the points raised. Good work so far! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reaction after almost two weeks. I unfortunately must close this review for now. Feel free to address the points raised above and nominate again. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]