Talk:Reginald Pinney/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. There are a number of disamb links that need fixing 8th Division (United Kingdom), Battle of Albert, Battle of Hazebrouck, Battle of the Lys, Henry Rawlinson, Nigel Hamilton and Public school
2. Reference style there are a mixture of dates used see refs 40 and 41 for example 40 has the date as 2010-09-19 while 41 is 21 September 2010
3. In the bibliography publishers locations could be added
4. What make ref 10 a reliable site http://web.archive.org/web/20070218172751/http://home.comcast.net/~markconrad/BRIT14.html
5. References 13, 15, 22, 31 and 38 need the authors details and publisher added
6. Ref 34 needs fixing has a extra ref
7. Ref 1 needs a page number
8. same with ref 2 and more info is it a book or web site ?
9. Ref 20 needs a page number
10. Pinney, Maj.-Gen. Sir Reginald (John) is listed in the references but not used

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Re/ refs 1 and 2 and 20, these are effectively purely online. They're mirroring print editions of reference works, and we could in theory quote page numbers, but I'd have to actually track down a printed copy to do so - they were written using the electronic ones only. Ref 2 is the "PINNEY, Maj-Gen..." in the references section - I could probably move this up into the notes, but it seems appropriate to keep it with the monographs, as it's a major source and the stuff cited only in Notes is mostly for details. Shimgray | talk | 18:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference dates, I've standardised it (sort of) so it's using "2010-09-20" for the access dates, and normal "1 January 1910" for the actual dates of the sources. I can standardise all down to the latter, if you'd like - I'm ambivalent, to be honest, since this way does seem to make it easy to distinguish. Shimgray | talk | 18:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK no rush just let me know when your finished --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of the last ones (noted above), I think that's the lot. The 1914-18 refs now have author details and sitename, but no publisher - there's not an obvious corporate body responsible for them beyond the author/editor - and I've replaced ref 10 with a print source. Let me know if there's anything else to expand on... Shimgray | talk | 20:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Passed Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)