Talk:Charles Coghlan (politician)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 11:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll review this. I have done some copyediting before starting. Doesn't look too far off but a bit of work is needed.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Prose is mostly good, strong enough for GA standards I think, though I have reworked it a little bit. Towards the end of the "Towards responsible government (1908–1922)" section you have a number at the start of a sentence. Also shouldn't it be "the BSAC" and not just "BSAC"?
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Looks okay. One minor point—major topics like the Jameson Raid don't have wikilinks.
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Reference footnotes need endashes (–) rather than hyphens (-), and spaces after commas. Ditto "The Years Between: 1923-1973." needs a hyphen. Some references don't have locations, publishers etc, please provide.
- B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- All fine. Good references and excellent further reading section.
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Covers the major aspects of Coghlan's life in a manner consistent with GA standards.
- B. Focused:
- I had some concerns before about the prose straying somewhat from the subject but I cut out these parts.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
I have concerns regarding the neutrality of the "Towards responsible government (1908–1922)" section. We talk about Botha making "policies and speeches that appeared unfair to South Africans of British origin" and Hertzog "misconstruing the intention of the Convention to the detriment of the British" and "the same racial discrimination that the Dutch were displaying against the British in the Union". Whose opinion is all this?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Nothing like this.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- File:Map of Southern Rhodesia c1927.jpg—I see you made this yourself. Good work! But what did you base it on? Where did the information come from? This needs to go on the description page. (Also if you could put a border around the little minimap in the bottom-left it would be a bit clearer.
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I would say this is not far off. Good work so far and I look forward to seeing this develop further. — Cliftonian (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Thank you, Cliftonian, for your review. I've been away for a couple of days and just got back to this now. Please give me 48 hours to make necessary improvements. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reference fixes done. FunkyCanute (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Neutrality fixes done. FunkyCanute (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Map description updated.
That should be the key concerns now fixed. I have also done a few other little fixes, like adding wikilinks. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK, passing for GA. Well done. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)