Talk:Neville–Neville feud/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can observe over the entire article that full-stop is placed inside apostrophes (' '), in this way ('XYAYAYAYYAYAY.'^[ref]). But this is wrong. It must be outside, because it is the end for the whole sentence not just in-apostrophe text. It is to be — 'XYAYAYAYYAYAY'.^[ref] This needs correction over the entire article.

A comment from a page stalker... The wiki supports either version, as neither is strictly speaking "wrong". There are differences between variants of English as to the pattern used and when full-stop should be within, and outside, the quotations marks. There are also variations of approach even within those national traditions: Quotation marks in English#Order of punctuation has fuller details. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hchc2009: Thank you. But consistency is not maintained in the article. In some cases, the later is used, in some cases, the former. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that can be permissible depending on the style being used (the Oxford style, I think, for example, considers the length and type of quote, with short snippets including the period within the quote, equivalents to full sentences placing them outside). I'd advise checking which style the editor concerned is using, and then establishing if they are being consistent with that approach. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hchc2009: Thanks for clarifying. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009, I've always gone by the Wikipediai Manual of Style's MOS:LQ section, which says that logical quotations should be used on the English Wikipedia. While the descriptions on the Quotation marks in English page describe English usage in general and around the world, it does not describe Wikipedia usage, which is what should apply in articles written for the site, including potential GAs. For Featured Articles, LQ would be mandated, since FAs must adhere to the entire Manual of Style. If the usage is inconsistent at present, I suggest standardizing on LQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing style must be changed. The long references must be moved to a new references section, and citations must be short of the just mentioning the author's last name, year, pages, or {{Sfn}} also may be used in the place. This is makes the citations clearer. For examples, see, Battle of Wareo, Battle of Isurava, Gallipoli Campaign, Bougainville counterattack.
Section 1; para 1; Mention who is "Michael Hicks". A historian, author or something.
Section 1; para 2; In "His next marriage (only five months after Margaret's death)", remove "only" per WP:NPOV. "only" is something like criticizing him.
Section 1; para 2; In "a cousin of the King, Richard II", commoa (,) after "King" is not necessary.
Section 1; para 3; Mention who is "A.J. Pollard"
Section 1; para 4; Mention who is "Charles Ross"
Section 1; para 4; The entire sentence following "Charles Ross, on the other hand" needs revision. It is a bit confusing. May be split it than one single sentence.
Section 2; para 2; Correct the word "importanct" to whatever it is to be.
Section 2; para 2; Mention who is "J.R. Lander"
Section 2; para 3; Mention who is "R.A. Griffiths"
Section 2; para 4; Mention who is "R.L. Storey"
Section 2; para 4; There is no such word as "enfeooffing"
Section 3; para 1; Why is the entire para presented in italics. If it is some kind of text from a deed, present it using {{Quote}}.
Section 3; para 2; If "J.R. Lander" is notable and an article doesn't exist, then it is to be red-linked on the first mention in the 2nd para of Section 2, but not here.
Section 3; para 2; I prefer rewording "described the Neville- Neville feud as illustrating how the Neville family" to "described the Neville- Neville feud as an illustration how the Neville family", also use emdash between Neville and Neville
- The dash used should be an en dash (–), not an em dash (—): Neville–Neville. That's what's used in the article title. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Typo error corrected. Thank you. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead needs expansion, and also the infobox needs additional parameters that are to be added (if available).

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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:
The nominator declared that he/she is no longer willing to address the comments and nomination is withdrawn. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]