GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 15:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'll read through properly and review. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that I've been inconsistent with italics for French terms, a ruling will help.Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - will look out for those pesky French words...! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, about done - last couple of points added below. I'll finish off the images at the weekend if necessary. If it goes to A Class review at any point, I've some thoughts on how it might be expanded etc., but with the last bits done, I'm happy that it meets the GA grade. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to get around to finishing off the image license editing (largely due to work pressures and an appalling internet connection here). I'm failing for now, but if anyone can get the image licensing fixed, it could be re-reviewed very quickly. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

GA points:

Non-GA points: (feel free to use or ignore!)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(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;

(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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

The tagging needs a little bit of work to be valid:

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

etc, what do I need to add and how please?Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at File:Verdun, east bank, February to March 1916.jpg as an example; I've clarified the publishing date (justifying the US pre-1923 tag), added the fuller details of the book, and added the Anonymous UK tag. All it needs now is just a line or two on the "Author: Anon" bit to explain what steps you took to identify the author (NB: as per the tag, important under UK law; e.g. "no author given in original newspaper or in reprinted version; basic Google searches produced no additional information" perhaps.) Then it's good to go. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realise now that the US pre-1923 criterion is insufficient but it was the reason I bothered to upload anything in the first place, since most of the uploads are better than nothing, rather than good in themselves. I'm not going to change them so feel free to delete. I feel an obligation to help with the GA review because much of the article is my doing but I'll restrict myself to textual improvements. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and thanks for your helping with the GA around the main article itself, it's much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's either that or lose the will to live.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]