Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth Ann Linley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleElizabeth Ann Linley has been listed as one of the Music 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
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2018Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 28, 2023.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth Ann Linley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 09:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Starting first read-through. More shortly, Tim riley talk 09:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After first read-through for spelling etc: only two queries – "cajouled" and "Appollo". Substantive comments to follow. Tim riley talk 10:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both fixed. Eric Corbett 13:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments

[edit]

Not much to detain us here. This is a fine article, and clearly of GA standard. Just a few minor points before I cut the ribbon:

  • Single quotes
    • If I correctly understand the Manual of Style, we use double quotes as default in e.g. "Captain" Thomas Matthews, and "The Romance of Sheridan and Miss Linley".
  • Lead
    • "Whig" – the OED capitalises the word when used in the political sense. Our Wikipedia article does too. And the word is capitalised at one point in this article.

That's all I can find to quibble about. This is an excellent and enjoyable article, and I look forward to promoting it to GA. – Tim riley talk 12:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, thank you very much for stepping into the breach in the present disagreeable and sad circumstances. Sagagaciousphil has been kind enough to explain to me what has been going on and why that fine editor has retired hurt – temporarily, let us hope. Focusing on this review, I am now satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, and I have much pleasure in promoting it to GA. I'm most grateful to you for helping to get it there. I shall keep my fingers crossed that it doesn't turn out to a swan song by our excellent colleague. – Tim riley talk 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. I would have done it anyway, but Sagaciousphil asked me to address the issues you raised, so I didn't try to usurp her efforts, which I have the greatest of respect for. All I can add is that it won't be her swan song if I've got anything to do with it. Eric Corbett 16:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

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:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    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:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Tim riley talk 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
can I ask for your contact 105.112.112.168 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]