Jump to content

Talk:Mortimer Wheeler/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 21:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 21:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim. Hope you enjoy reading it! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some points on the prose:

Those are my suggestions from my first pass through this article. It is potentially first rate, but needs the prose tightening up, and ambiguities resolving. I'm putting the review on hold to give you time to address these points. Tim riley talk 01:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going to the trouble of reviewing this article, @Tim riley: would you be averse to me striking out each point as I have corrected it (I know that some users don't mind, but others detest it, so just thought that I'd ask). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with whatever suits you. Tim riley talk 12:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: I believe that I have responded to every comment that you have kindly provided; there are a few I have left untouched because they relate to an American English-British English scenario that I would appreciate some more advice on. I really appreciate how thorough your analysis of the prose and its weaknesses has been; by following your recommendations I have tightened the wording of this article up considerably, and it is much the better for it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

That's greatly improved matters, and the prose now meets the GA standard. To my mind the article is a potential FA candidate, though if you decide to go in that direction I recommend taking it to peer review first. There are some small points of drafting that would need attention for FA level, and the references would want a bit of tweaking (e.g. OCLC number, ODNB sub tag, and you may have trouble getting the Daily Mail unanimously accepted as a reliable source). For now, though, I see no reason to delay promotion to GA:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I greatly enjoyed this article. Wheeler was a prominent public figure when I was a boy – I remember seeing him on the television frequently – and it has been most interesting to learn more about him here. If you decide to go to PR or FAC please let me know. – Tim riley talk 09:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]