Talk:Nyon Conference/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eisfbnore ^talk 15:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a short, but well-written and properly referenced article by User:Grandiose, whose work with the SCW I have been admiring. Will give a review swiftly. --Eisfbnore ^talk 15:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Please don't write prose with brackets. Also, there a few short, stubby lines in the first para of the first section, such as "Observers were posted to Spanish ports and borders" and "Controls were widely evaded", etc.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The lead is a bit short.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced. Could do with a bit of standardisation though; compare citations like "The English Historical Review (1975). p. 111–112." with "Thomas (1961). pp. 476–7." (note the difference in the page range)

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
The following sentence is a bit WP:SYNTH: "In doing so, Britain was perhaps avoiding confrontation with the Italians, as air and surface attacks had been open, whereas submarine attacks were covert." Suggest attributing this to cited historian(s).
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The last para of the last section violates WP:EDITORIAL and WP:NOTED. Please indicate who is stating what in a neutral tone.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Could perhaps do with a picture of Chamberlain in the last section.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Placing on hold. --Eisfbnore ^talk 16:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, think I've done everything you've mentioned – I wasn't happy with most of the things you flagged when I wrote them. I agree with the synopsis that it's short but complete enough, as it covers a small topic. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then everything seems to have been seen to. I'll pass the article. Another great SCW article from the House of Grandiose! --Eisfbnore ^talk 18:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]