Talk:William James Wanless/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LK (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Overall, I am impressed with the comprehensiveness of this article, and the density of the citations. Detailed review below using the Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria template for reviewing. LK (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
1. Well-written
[edit]- (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct
- Passes.
- (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- 'Mission in India' is a bit long, and haphazard. The content needs to be better organised, and split into subsections.
- 'Publications' section needs to explain the inclusion criteria for the works listed (why are these listed?), and what it means by "As cited in other works"
2. Factually accurate and verifiable
[edit]- (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
- Inline citations need to be formatted according to the manual of style on footnotes, specifically, the inline citations should come directly at the end of sentences, and should have no space before or in between them.
- (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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
- Passes.
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Passes.
3. Broad in its coverage
[edit]- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- Passes, except:
- 'Honours' section should be expanded to give more context, drawing from the sources cited.
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Passes.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
[edit]- Largely OK, but wording tends to the positive. This needs to be toned down. The whole article needs to be checked for neutral wording, and reworded as necessary.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
[edit]- Passes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images
[edit]- Photos of the medical center in Miraj (both old and modern) would be nice.
- The images should use the 'upright=' parameter instead of 'XXX px'. They also need alts, see Wikipedia:ALT.
- (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
- The image 'Cropped Wanless image from 1888, likely at the New York University School of Medicine.jpg' has an incorrect license, and needs to be fixed.
- (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
- "Badge of the knight bachelor" has dubious value to the article.
Closing
[edit]It's been nearly a month, unless there is some answer to the points raised above (some of which have already been fixed), I'll have to (reluctantly) close this GA as 'failed'. LK (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Should be failed as the above states; if it hasn't been fixed yet it probably won't be. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm reluctantly closing as failed due to non-response to the above issues. LK (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)