Jump to content

Talk:E. T. Whittaker/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming this one. Article is reasonably long, so this may take a while. On the other hand, it looks in good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article meets GA requirements. If you want to take it to FA, ping me for a list of additional items.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


I made a series of minor changes. Revert anything you're unhappy with:

  • Added the {{postnominals}} template
  • Removed the academic postnominals per MOS:POSTNOM: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead.
  • Added some ref=none cards to suppress some warnings generated by scripts I run.
  • Removed the worlcat urls, which are covered by the oclc cards
  • More controversially, I removed the summary paragraph of "Life". It is unnecessary as there is a summary in the lead and all the details are the article, and was unsourced (although the sources could be found elsewhere in the article)
  • Fixed typos: "vigor", "ahs"
  • added some commas.
  • Fixed the Edinburgh link and added the page number. Other links look okay.
  • The claim that he received the Tyson Medal for Mathematics and Astronomy in 1895 was unsourced. Corrected the date and added a source.
  • Added a {{London Gazette}} link for his knighthood.
  • Aside: the fact that he was second wrangler had me wondering who was first. It was Thomas John I'Anson Bromwich.
  • Despite what the previous reviewer said, "Bibliography" is usually used for books by the subject. But meh.

Passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]