Talk:History of the United Kingdom during the First World War/GA1

GA Review

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

Intro

Personal apologies for the delay of almost a month, I shall do my best, with your support, to make sure any issues are quickly addressed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not fufill any of the criteria for quick failure, and that's always a good start! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

Review in-depth

GA review (see here for criteria)

I plan to make this review rather thorough. From an initial and brief look it seems to mostly adhere to the criteria, however there are some minor nuances that are holding it back.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Overall, the prose is very good. There are some issues that show the article hasn't been checked over since some additions were made and the occasional 'tortured sentence'.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Comprehensive sources there is no doubt. As for in-line references, I have come across some statements where they are necessary (and have applied "citation needed").

Just checked and all the {fact} tags now have refs --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No real issues here. My feeling is that the "Women and the suffragette movement" should come under "Social change" though.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Acceptable, though this image has a retired template for public domain, and this image only satisfies criteria under a low resolution and also the uploader needs to be contacted ("[...] please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use as well as the source of the work and copyright information", this hasn't been done).

The second image has been deleted as the source from a external site looks suspect

Probably better under a copyright lapsed licence, which would work I think. I have no idea how copyright can be claimed. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 09:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first image has a new template added --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I have no issues with images now. Although would it be difficult to find an image for the last couple of headers; it seems amiss to find the end of a well-illustrated article to be absent of images. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: Excellent article, I'm really impressed with the quality at GAN. I would recommend taking this to FA soon actually, it's that good. Thank you for your work, it was a nice topic to review. If you could review another GAN article it would be appreciated. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/Fail: