Talk:Israel the Grammarian/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I am on holiday and will be off wiki from 12 to 21 April, but will respond as soon as I can on my return. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I am happy to wait for you to return. In conducting this review, I will:

Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

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.	Well-written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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 image, with fair use rationale described
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

Hi! Welcome back from your holiday, I hope you had a great time. I've yet to verify this article (as in, check some sources), which I'll do in a day or two, but this article will almost surely be promoted once that's done.

One small things it that it could use an infobox, as this article is about a person, and I like the context that an infobox gives. This is not something that 'must' be addressed.

Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a brilliant holiday thanks. I went to Jordan and saw Petra. I have added an infobox. Is it OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear, sounds like a wonderful holiday. Yep, this article meets or exceeds the requirements for GA, so I am promoting it. Well done! --LT910001 (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an afternote, I think there may be an easier way to make citations - you might not be aware of it, it uses the {{sfn}} templates. Have a look at Madman's Drum, which I recently reviewed, to see how that's done. --LT910001 (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I will take a look at sfn. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]