Talk:Pell v The Queen/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 03:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article soon. I just read this article and I'm happy to review it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Alexeyevitch, I really appreciate it. Some of my sources are paywalled, anything you need feel free to let me know and I can send it to you via email. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Feel free to email and add {{ygm}} to talk page. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch all done. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I haven't recivied an email so far regarding unaccessible sources, I am referring to the pages in the sources specifically. I will begin an OR check soon. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch which specific sources do you want please, there's a few — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemming (2022), p. 57, 74-75, Patrick (2023), pp. 116-118. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch hemming is open access, the reference link goes to the main article page and there is a PDF on that page. Available here. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll be back later today with additional comments. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch thanks! Appreciate your time. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is the second, available here. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed some which meet the criteria. I am putting other criteria on hold (for now).

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.	Suggestion: Why not link Barwon Prison in the lede, Following Pell's release from prison on 7 April 2020, there were various reactions. Pope Francis of the Vatican stated he..., prehaps can be reworded to mention "head of the catholic church" or something. Why not link East Melbourne in the lede? I think it's more relevant than linking the city of Melbourne itself.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No WtW discovered Lede is concise with content later supported by reliable sources Layout is correct Passed
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Suggestion: add archived URLs. Ref layout is correct. Passing this criteria.
	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).	Contains a list references with no issue of reliability. Passed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I've just verified content in the provided references (1 hr. ago), all good now.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig spots some things of concern: ~~evidence was credible and reliable could be changed to evidence was reliable and credible.~~ ~~choirboys at St. Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne after.. prehaps could be reworded.~~ the jury to be satisfied beyond too similar to source. Should be OK.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Passed
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Content is stable, no edit wars etc.
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.	Yes.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is in a great shape. Congrats!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.