Talk:Jewels of Elizabeth II/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I recently wrote this page and I'm willing to do more work if needed. This is my first GA nom, be nice to me! ;p --Cameron * 13:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'll be doing the GA review for this article, as you requested on my talk page. I don't have time to do a full review right at the moment, but I'll give you a few comments that jumped out at me on my first run through the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, it should have no original information in it and no need for references, unless you're supporting a direct quote.

There shouldn't be external links in the body of the text as there are in the General History section. These should be turned into references or moved into the external links section.

External links go after references, not before.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The General History section is unreferenced.

It looks like the first paragraphs of some of the two-paragraph sub-sections are unreferenced. I'm assuming this is because the same reference covers both the first and the second paragraphs. Could you possibly put a ref at the end of both paragraphs (using named refs, please, to avoid repetitions), to make it clearer that the same ref covers both paragraph? For example, one of these sections is the The King George IV State Diadem subsection.

There should not be a space between the punctuation and the ref.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
My major concern with this article is that the entire thing is referenced to the same source. Now, this could be the best source possible for this article, which would mean that this is fine, but I think you may be leaving some things out with only using one source. Is there any information elsewhere on what the public thinks of these pieces of jewelry? By looking through some more sources, you may find more interesting tidbits that would be nice to incorporate into the article. You are definitely not running up against a length problem, so any additions should be fine.
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):
Your image of Queen Elizabeth II wearing the Diamond and Pearl Tiara has a licensing problem, and is quite likely to be deleted in the next few days.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

These are the major issues that I saw with the article. I haven't done a complete check of prose, although from what I've seen it looks good, so I doubt there will be many issues there. I am putting the article on hold for seven days to allow you time to deal with the issues I have raised above. Let me know here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, this is really helpful! --Cameron * 15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I believe I have addressed all concerns now except getting additional sources which is proving exceptionally difficult. I do believe Field's book is the authority on this topic but I would have liked some outside, reliable views, as you suggested...--Cameron * 17:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work so far. Please note that you need to properly format current ref #3, which is one of your new refs and is currently just a bare link.

Please take your time in getting new sources...a decision doesn't need to be made about GA status right away and I would much rather see it passed after it has been improved rather than passed or failed as is. I would suggest checking out your local library, as well as looking for media sources on it (check for articles in major British newspapers, as well as possibly American or other foreign ones if the jewels were reported upon when they were worn on state visits). Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had a whole week yet? I will take a look in my library but I think online will be better in my case as I live on the continent. Best, --Cameron * 17:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've still got a week. That's what I was trying to emphasize with my above comment, but I apparently just made things more confusing *grin*. Sorry... Dana boomer (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I found this whole thing extremely helpful and nicely organised. --Cameron * 18:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some 'Dress for the Occasion' refs, I think they are quite good. They are reliable (royal-collection.org) and back up important bits and bobs...Best, --Cameron * 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cameron! I'm just checking back in to see if you are still working on adding more information or if you are considering the article complete. Either way is good with me...just let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taking so long! Would you mind giving me another couple of days. Content wise I think it's OK but I'd really like another few sources! ;) Thanks for putting up with me!! ;) Best, --Cameron * 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on the length of time, and of course you can have another few days. Just let me know when you're ready. I'd always rather see the article improved, and thank you for working so hard to make this article even better than it already is. Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Google Books Cameron? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no joy either...:( --Cameron * 11:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks great on the article, so I am passing it to GA status. Very nice work on the article, and the new sources look fantastic. Nice job! Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]