Talk:Wilberforce (cat)

Credit is due

I've revived it as the cat's two sucessors have articles and this cat apparently had the job longer than them. Also the tendency to "delete by redirecting" is one I strongly disdain.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wilberforce (cat)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 22:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• This article meets the GA standard. Congrats to Tim O'Doherty and everyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking up the review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2023 (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.	After some minor tweaks, the prose is good - pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, well-sourced.
	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).	A few tabloid sources, but nothing known to be generally unreliable, and generally good newspaper sourcing. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None detected, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Can't find anything else of note. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No overdetail - the subject is inherently a little trivial, but definitely notable and adequately covered. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Quite recent editing, but I assume that further edits are not planned. Provisional pass.
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.	One fair use image, looks reasonable. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues here, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Evrik (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Wilberforce "seem[ed] to go on forever"? Source: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/808613700/
  • ALT1: ... that Margaret Thatcher once bought Wilberforce a tin of sardines in a supermarket in Moscow? Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5927190/Downing-Street-cat-Sybil-dies.html
  • ALT2: ... that Wilberforce was described as "the best mouser in Britain"? Source: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/751115691/
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Tim O'Doherty (talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Wilberforce (cat); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Tim O'Doherty: Good article. But, i feel as if these hooks aren't all too interesting. Is there something better that could be done? Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke I thought they were all interesting. How about a modification of the first one "... that the Lincolnshire Echo wrote that Wilberforce "seem[ed] to go on forever"?" Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess when thinking about it they're a little interesting. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)