Talk:Reginald Weaver

Reginald Weaver has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 14, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: New South Wales / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Reginald Weaver is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

GA Review

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reginald Weaver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 22:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed, please check that I have the correct target.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: one found and tagged.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I find the prose reasonably well written apart from:

...before joining two of his brothers in a stock and station agency in Forbes... "stock and station agency" needs explanation.

but instead found Weaver's own organisers guilty of roll-stuffing. "roll-stuffing" needs explanation.

I made a few minor copy-edits.[3]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~ref #19[4] is a dead link.~~

~~Does "Newington College Register of Past Students 1863-1998 (Syd, 1999) " have an ISBN?~~ I checked, it doesn't.

Otherwise referencing and sources OK
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers major details well, no unnecessary trivia.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
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):
Images have suitable captions and are correctly licensed.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything is fine, so i am happy to list this as a GA. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.