Talk:Cad and the Dandy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —focus 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Look pretty good, if it is rather short, but I'll read through it first and see if I have any comments. —focus 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro

• Premises should be linked
• Savile Row should be linked on the first appearance, not the second
• Intro sounds pov – "high-quality fabrics" should be toned down, and the price comparison reads like an advertisement.
• "who were both made redundant" sounds strange – perhaps, "who's jobs were rendered useless", or something along those lines. The people weren't redundant, their jobs were.
• Link The Guardian

History

• Again, the "redundant" bit sounds strange

Suits

• The first paragraph also reads a bit like an advertisement, but I think it's okay. It would be better if you could find some more reliable sources for that part, though.

Critical response

• The r in response (in the section header) should be lowercase. See WP:MOSHEAD
• Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Are there any professional reviews you could cite in this section?

References

• look okay, for the most part, but reliable, professional reviews should be added if possible.

Images

• Since the infobox image depicts a copyrighted logo, it should be marked as a free use image appropriately, even if it is from Flickr.
• In the second image, there's not indication that it was released under a suitable license on the blog. If you're the owner of the image, it must have an OTRS ticket, and you have to release it under a suitable license in writing. If not, it should be removed and marked for deletion.

I'm putting this article on hold for a week for changes to be made. —focus 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to GA review

Sorry for the delay in getting to this, what with Christmas and New Year, I have been absent from WP for some time. Thanks for reviewing. I have begun to make the improvements requested.

Intro

• Premises should be linked - To premises? Ok, done
• Savile Row should be linked on the first appearance, not the second - Good point, done
• Intro sounds pov – "high-quality fabrics" should be toned down, and the price comparison reads like an advertisement. Agreed. I think some price comparison is fair, as it is included in the cited source, and is a key selling point of the company. Hopefully the new phrasing sounds less like an advertisment.
• "who were both made redundant" sounds strange – perhaps, "who's jobs were rendered useless", or something along those lines. The people weren't redundant, their jobs were. With respect, I disagree. Perhaps this is an example of a UK idiom, but over here it is a well known and much-used expression for a legal measure by which people lose their jobs. I have made a small change which might make it sound better but, ultimately, I think the expression is ok.
• Link The Guardian done

History

• Again, the "redundant" bit sounds strange Not done, as above

Suits

• The first paragraph also reads a bit like an advertisement, but I think it's okay. It would be better if you could find some more reliable sources for that part, though. I see what you mean, but I don't think it is unacceptable. It is a statement of fact, and key to explaining the service provided. If you are happy with it, I would prefer not to change this.

Critical response

• The r in response (in the section header) should be lowercase. See WP:MOSHEAD Done
• Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Are there any professional reviews you could cite in this section? Definitely agree, however the sad fact is that there are few (if any?) professional reviewers of bespoke tailors. This market is almost entirely covered by amateur bloggers and so citing a blog to support the positive reaction of style bloggers seems fair to me. I will continue to look for better sources, but I think they may be hard to find.

References

• look okay, for the most part, but reliable, professional reviews should be added if possible. Thanks. See above for response to this.

Images

• Since the infobox image depicts a copyrighted logo, it should be marked as a free use image appropriately, even if it is from Flickr.Now done, with an FUR for the logo itself, in addition to the license for the photograph
• In the second image, there's not indication that it was released under a suitable license on the blog. If you're the owner of the image, it must have an OTRS ticket, and you have to release it under a suitable license in writing. If not, it should be removed and marked for deletion.The blog now explicitely releases the image under a CC license.

Very many thanks for your review, and I hope these changes are acceptable. Do let me know if you have any remaining concerns with the areas I have already dealt with, so that I can fix them promptly.--Korruski^Talk 15:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses; the article looks a lot better and I think it now meets the GA criteria, so I will promote it. I have included a copy of the criteria below. Very nice work! —focus 20:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: