Talk:Michael Rush (rower)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 16:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go on then, I'll stick my oar in and review this one. Comments to follow. Harrias ^talk 16:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the article, it generally reads well, although there are a few recurring prose issues that I have: one is the varying tense; using phrases such as "that it could now support", "had marked", "had now" and countless other examples. As a basic rule of thumb, the events happened in the past, so relate that as simply as possible; the "now" in the first example is redundant, as in the third example, though a clarification of the time would be beneficial. In the second example, the "had" is redundant. The use of Rock's full name at occasional intervals in the article is unnecessary, once he has been identified, he should either be referred to by surname or a pronoun. Similarly for other people in the article. There are multiple times that the language in the article is more conversational than encyclopedic, an extreme example of this is the use of "feckless", while subtler examples are "again and again" and "'pumpkin eaters' (rustics)". If you want, I can work through the article with you and raise each prose point with suggestions, but there is a much larger issue which needs to be solved first. Throughout the article, there are unreferenced claims, and in places, language that implies editorial comment, which could suggest the use of original research. This is particularly true of the "Appearance and character" and "Contribution to Australian aquatics" sections, both of which only have one reference, and it unclear if this reference supports the entire section, or merely the bit before it.

Other manual of style issues that require fixing, although without much difficulty are:

The use of semi-colons to replicate headings, simply use ===Heading=== instead.
The use of a horizontal rule to seperate the above heading.
The use of external links in the prose, such as "Prospero Coulon" and "William Hickey" in the "Early rowing matches" sections.
The blockquote from Patrick O'Farrell is longer than I feel is necessary, I don't think the quote is important enough to quote such a large amount of, just cherry pick one of two of the more relevant quotes to make the point. More relevantly though, is O'Farrell specifically referring to Rush? Because if not, the article certainly implies that it is.

I will leave it there for the time being; if you have any comments or questions, don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page, and I will be more than happy to work through anything with you. I will place the review on hold for the time being. Harrias ^talk 20:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll get to work at once. Bluedawe 22:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query

It's been over two weeks since the above, and a series of edits have been made to the article. What's the status of the review? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, for various reasons I lost track of this. I'll give it another read over now. Harrias ^talk 15:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further review

"and it is possible that Rush saw his uncle Thomas win large cash prizes in Port Jackson sculling matches." This requires a reference to avoid it appearing to be original research.
"..taking advantage of the new Crown Lands Act of Sir John Robertson took up a selection.." I think "of Sir John Robertson" should be cut from this sentence, which is pretty clunky with its inclusion. Alternatively, it would need rewriting to change the sentence structure.
The "Major sculling matches" section still has an external link in the first sentence.
There is another in the "The Rush Trophy" section.
"Starter" requires disambiguation in the "Later life and career" section.
In general I think the "Later life and career" section could benefit from less, but longer paragraphs; some of the current paragraphs could certainly be merged.
The references need completing as per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Most of the sources are from newspapers, so for example, ref #1 is currently:

Northern Star 8 Jan 1923

This should be expanded to:

"Memories of Mick Rush". The Northern Star. Lismore, New South Wales. 8 January 1923. p. 2. Retrieved 1 September 2013.

I used the {{cite news}} template to help create the reference, that isn't required, but I find it to be useful: more information of its use can be found on the template page I linked to. If you wish to use abbreviations with the table you have already provided, that is not a problem, but the rest of the information is still needed. Harrias ^talk 16:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll get onto this starting next month - other deadlines have intruded. (BTW Glad to see you're better. Did the wall sue you for assault? I shouldn't be surprised, we live in strange times.) Bluedawe 21:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me know when you want me to look over the article again. I'm not going to impose any sort of deadline for getting the work done unless it gets really silly. And thanks: I didn't consider suing the wall, maybe I should get my solicitor to look into that! (Though I would be worried that it would counter-sue me for damages..) Harrias ^talk 12:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have undertaken the latest edits as per your recent suggestions, and would appreciate your comments. Cheers. Bluedawe 00:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work so far. Unfortunately, real life commitments mean I will not be able to continue the review at this stage, I have posted at the GA talk page (here) to see if someone else will take on the review. My sincere apologies, Harrias ^talk 19:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

All concerns addressed, and I can't see any new ones that mean this fails as a GA. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]