Talk:Hugh McElhenny/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 12:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

I'll do this one. Will start soon. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack: I think it'd be best to start with this one, if you will. Of the three it's the one I feel most satisfied with. Lizard (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard: Okay, I'll do McElhenny next, before Johnson. I've done Perry subject to one citation. Sorry, I've been short of time in the last week or so but I will get to them all. Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full review criteria checks

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and embedded lists: see below
Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Scope:

B. Length:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

The main part of the article is fine but I believe some work needs to be done on the introduction. With reference to WP:LEAD, it should really be "three to four paragraphs" (given that the article is 30k-plus) and I think it isn't quite a fully concise summary of the narrative. I'll leave it with you as you know the subject and I don't. Please let me know when you've had chance to consider. Placing "on hold" for now. Good work overall, though, and a very interesting article. He must have been quite a player. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack: I think it should suffice now. Lizard (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard: Sorry, I read the article again first thing this morning but had to go out and then forgot all about it! It's very good now and I am completely satisfied. Excellent work which deservedly rates GA. Well done. I'll look at John Henry Johnson in a few days, if that's okay. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]