Talk:Martin Gilliat

Martin Gilliat 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.
Review: December 23, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).

British Royalty Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Martin Gilliat appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 November 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, once stood on his head for Sir Martin Gilliat?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Gilliat.

Wikipedia

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Martin Gilliat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this article to be a Good Article. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 23:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:

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:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Copyright violation from obituary at independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-ltcol-sir-martin-gilliat-1489032.html "Like her, he took...treated them all alike." I will not proceed with Review until this issue is fixed. Issue fixed, see note to MagikCow below.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
No images, don't know if any CC-by-SA license-types are available, I do think the article would benefit from one if possible.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
(As above)
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Good job, well-written - lays out the facts of the man's life and lets them speak for themselves without resorting to peacock words, etc. I knew nothing about Gilliat before I started this Review and, just now, reading over the article again, it actually brought me to tears. I think Gilliat exemplified the saying "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."

Uninvolved comment: I would like to add my thoughts on your assertation of a CopyVio. This allegation is regarding a picece of text that is specifically attributed and sourced to the Independant Article. The atricle states " his obituary in The Independent credited him with helping her carve out a new role for herself and described his attitude: " with an indented piece of text. This shows that it is a quotation, which is followed by a WP:INLINE citation giving the attribution. I would urge you to read WP:INTEXT to see more and how this is allowed. Bearing this in mind, I feel that user:Shearonink should now continue with the review. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to TheMagikCow for pointing out my error on that. I am so hep on attributing sources etc that I missed the indenting. Shearonink (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; Copyvios are such an important issue that it is always best to point them out if in any doubt! TheMagikCow (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org