Talk:Humphrey (cat)/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

This article looks to be about GA-level, but I have noticed a few problems with lack of citations, i.e. lack of compliance with WP:verify; nevertheless I will continue with the review.

I intend to go through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Humphrey (cat) -

• Almost entirely unreferenced. Non-compliant with WP:verify.

• Two added—possible scope for one more. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Humphrey's problems -

• A reference is needed to verify claims in first paragraph.

Fixed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• The Ref 4 pdf file is 121 pages long and appears to be a FOI request. As the in-line citation refers to a specific Press Release, the page number, or range of page numbers, should be specified in the citation.

Fixed--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Humphrey and the Blairs -

• First paragraph: a citation is needed for the Private Eye claim.
• The second paragraph has an unreferenced quotation in the firs sentence; and unreferenced speculation or possible WP:OR in the second sentence.

Fixed--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Rumours of murder -

• A source is need for the apparent claims of the Conservatives.

Fixed--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• In retirement & Successor -

• Both appear to be acceptable.

• References -

• All the Telegraph links, i.e. No.s 7, 11, 12, lead to a search page, but the articles do not appear to available.
• The Yahoo reference, 16, appears to have expired.

All fixed: repaired or replaced. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• This is intended to be both an introduction to the article and a summary of the main points. It's quitre good as an Introduction, but its a bit short and its not all that good at summarising all the main points.

• Further comments on lack of in-line citations -

• I've already commented above on the lack of in-line citations for some paragraphs. Your existing references, probably already provide verification but you are not making use of them.

I'm putting the article on Hold for the above comments to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An amusing article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)