Talk:Jiggs II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 18:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote b requires a cite for the second sentence.
There is quite a bit of information in the infobox which is not in the main article. My (and Wikipedia's) strong preference is for the information in the infobox to be duplicated in the article, the infobox is supposed to be an at-a-glance summary of the article. If not, could you source information in the infobox which is not already in the article.
You mention the disagreeable behaviour of Private Pagett in the lead but not in the article. The lead should be a summary of information contained in the article.

Otherwise it is looking good. A very nicely put together article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Gog the Mild - thanks for your review! I think I've fixed all of these now but please let me know if you see anything I've missed. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine piece of work. Very solidly referenced, and dryly amusing. GA.
For me, less is more re images. Your change improves the whole look of the article.
Suggestion. You may want to change the "175px" to "upright=0.75" (or whatever size you fancy) to comply with MOS:IMGSIZE. This will allow the image size to vary according to what readers have set as their preferences.