Talk:Joseph Royle
Joseph Royle was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 29, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Williamsburg publisher Joseph Royle refused to print the 1765 Virginia Resolves in his Virginia Gazette newspaper, causing Thomas Jefferson to intervene with an opposing newspaper? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Royle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next week and stack it up for User:Doug Coldwell when he gets back, as we have discussed. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: I am ready at this time to address any issues for this article. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Noted - I suddenly got busier than I expected, but will be turning to this and my other GA reviews this weekend at the latest. Thanks for your patience. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: I'm presently working on some other GAN reviews that recently came in, so will get to this one when I can. Thanks for patience. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: I'm trying to get this correct as you talk about in 1a and want to understand this correctly of using "enslaved servant" instead of the "slave" word. Have I worded this correctly in the Household section and under the advertises for captions? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. Thank you for your work on this article so far, we're very close! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. Thank you for your work on this article so far, we're very close! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This article now passes GA. Congrats to Doug Coldwell and anyone else who worked on it! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2022 (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. |
| |
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. |
| |
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). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
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. |
Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
[edit]This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)