Talk:Munich Mouser/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this on for review. I'm always surprised by just how well-researched the articles on the chief mousers are, so I'm happy to have a look at this one. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Lead

• "Sometimes referred to in the press as Joey or Toby" So we have four different names for this one cat. Are we sure that "Munich Mouser" is the common name and that "Bob" is his given name? Why did some in the press refer to him by these other names?

Pretty sure that "Munich Mouser" is the common name, but I've made a redirect from Bob (cat) anyway.

• Do we not have any images of Bob to use in the article?

Not that I've found from the newspapers, no. Given that he was apparently photographed quite a bit in September 1938, I'm a bit annoyed that none in the press decided to publish any images, but I suppose they were costly and finicky in the 30s.

• Think there could be another sentence about his reputation with the press.

Yep, done in "Death".

Under Neville Chamberlain

• "the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporting that he could trace his lineage back to the cat of Thomas Wolsey." Good that this is attributed as it's quite the claim.

It is, and, I suspect, false (but a good detail).

• "owing to his role as a civil servant, he received a salary" I'm assuming "his" and "he" refers to the cat, not to Chamberlain? Might need clarifying.

Done.

• "the daughter of Charles II" Here the link in "daughter" might be considered an easter egg link. Consider being more explicit.

Done by including "the" in the link so it doesn't look like a generic link to Daughter.

• " Winston Churchill "rather scathing[ly]" nicknamed Bob Munich Mouser due to the agreement signed by Chamberlain and the chancellor and Führer of Germany, Adolf Hitler, in Munich, Bavaria" This is quite long. Consider removing "in Munich, Bavaria" and using the more explicit "Munich agreement". Also consider trimming "chancellor", as by this point, Hitler had combined the roles of chancellor and head of state.

Done both.

• "After his death, it was speculated that during the talks Munich agreed more with Chamberlain than with the Nazis" This is referring to the cat?

Yep. Maybe a bit ridiculous, but that's the tone used on these mouser articles; the whole concept of "cats with jobs" is ridiculous.

Under Winston Churchill

• "the two were reported to have a decent relationship" The two being Munich and Churchill or Munich and Nelson?

Clarified.

• "The Daily Telegraph instead reported that Munich had been "chased out of Downing Street"" Any reason why?

Made it explicit that the Telegraph was wrong.

Death

• Side comment: Damn these papers hated this cat, what the hell.

Think it's to do with their perception of Chamberlain, which coloured their view of Munich. The cat really was described as a traitor; you'd've thought that he was the one who invaded Poland or something.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   At times it's unclear who it's referencing, but this is easily clarified.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   A couple of easter egg links, but nothing problematic.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Citations are all complete.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Inline citations provided for every claim.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Article is fully cited to verifiable sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig only flags attributed direct quotes.[1]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Seems like this biography is very complete

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   It over-contextualises a little in the first paragraph of the biography, could do with a wee trim. Looks good.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   All non-neutral statements are properly attributed.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No reversions since creation in August 2020. Last major addition was by the nominator shortly before nominating.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Copyright information on image of Churchill is iffy. This should be looked at. Problematic image replaced.

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

   Chamberlain and Churchill are relevant, but curiously there's no image of Munich himself. Alt text has been provided for the images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm holding for now, as I have some comments that should be addressed. I don't think there's any major issues here and my comments should be easily addressed. Overall this is a very well put-together article. Fantastic work researching this cat. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Grnrchst - I believe all of your comments are addressed now. Cheers for the review, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tim O'Doherty: Ok, thanks for looking at all of this! All of my issues have been thoroughly addressed and I'm happy to pass this now. Excellent work once again! --Grnrchst (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.