Talk:William Henry Barlow/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Designate (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. This article is a pretty good summary of the sources and well written per the GA criteria. I just have some minor concerns:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead should be a more substantive summary of the article (see WP:MOSINTRO and other GAs). It doesn't have to be very long, considering the size of the article, but at least a paragraph should be included touching on the most important points. My other concern is the heading structure—is it possible to divide the "Career" section a little bit more?

   I have expanded the lead.

   I did play around with dividing the career thematically as I did with Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet, but this produced a series of quite short sections and I felt chronological ordering was less disjointed.--DavidCane (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The ODNB says he died "of exhaustion"—this is vague but maybe you should mention it in conjunction with the broken leg.

   Added.--DavidCane (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   All of the images are public domain, so there are no issues. Mind you, there is some administrative garbage on File:John Collier - William Henry Barlow.jpg that ought to be checked out.

   I have tidied-up the description.--DavidCane (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good work on the article. I've put the nomination on hold. —Designate (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--DavidCane (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Great work. —Designate (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)