Talk:Hilary Benn/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AlastairJHannaford (talk · contribs) 14:40, 28 July 2019 (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.	There is a litany of spelling and grammatical issues, making it hard to read and detracting from the content.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	On the lead section, it could be shortened to give it greater impact on the reader, as there is some repetition within it. The second paragraph must be re-worked as to be grammatically correct. The third paragraph could be rephrased to allow for it to read with greater ease. Though not major, the title of the first section (Labour in government) on its own is grammatically poor, and also lacks flow in reading. The last sentence of the second paragraph (referring to Benn's constituency office) should be rephrased to read better.
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.	This is the case.
	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).	Everything is in order.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I believe this to be the case, as everything appears to be accurately cited.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I believe this to be the case, as everything appears to be accurately cited and in order.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This is an entry on a British politician, and his political views had been summed up as "Benn supports the maintenance of a nuclear-armed strategic force by the United Kingdom." While they have been added to, the impression that this article is incomplete still remains.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is to the point.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It is written in a neutral manner.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	It is stable.
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.	All are in order.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	This is the case.
	7. Overall assessment.	I am of the view, that while an effort was made to improve the article it still falls short of the criteria.