Talk:Percy Shaw Jeffrey/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead should be a summary of the entire article and should not contain any new information (as it currently contains on his parents). In general, it should follow the same layout as the article, with summaries of the sections presented in chronological order. The lead could stand to be longer, by at least 2-3 sentences, perhaps more if you wished.

I've had a bash. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Early teaching career" section, some of the wording is stilted, and honestly sounds like it came straight out of the source material. For instance, "being made out of work". I may be wrong, and this may be just the way you write, but please make sure you aren't copying verbatim out of the source.

First paragraph of the Early teaching career section, what is a "third-class degree"?

Clarified /wikilinked —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarry1250 (talk • contribs)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are several places where the ends of paragraphs are missing references. For example, the second paragraph of Early teaching career and the first and second paragraphs of Headmaster. The second paragraph of Headmaster is especially important because you say he was a "national pioneer", which is a claim that really needs to be backed up by a source. In the Publications section, the last paragraph, where it says "could also give time to his love of travelling" needs a ref, as does end of the first paragraph in the Later life and death section.

All except one done I think - the one about the school song at Skinner's is really troublesome. I copied it from their wiki page, but it isn't referenced there. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ref template that starts with "citation" should not be mixed with the ref templates that start "cite xxx" (i.e. cite web, cite journal, etc)., so the article should be standardized to use either one or the other.

Corrected, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarry1250 (talk • contribs)

Books should always have page numbers given (for example, ref 1, Jeffrey's memoirs). If multiple pages from the book are used that are not sequential, the ref can be split up into multiple refs, each giving their individual page or page range.

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Apologia, and my local library (from whence I referred to it originally) is shut for refurbishment until early March. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ref #3 a book? Is there no author known? Why is the page number suspect?

Improved a bit, will probably improve some more. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ref #5 a book? No pages? Pages are not something I'm going to harp on or fail the GAN on, but they are something that the article should have.

Refs 9 and 15, from The Colcestrian, should have more info, if available. Was this a specific article or page in the magazine?

Ref nine updated; ref 15 swapped for another apologia ref. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarry1250 (talk • contribs)

Ref 14 seems to be a journal - was there no article title?

Ditto library remark above.

Ref 16 needs a publisher.

Done (turned into a cite web for consistency) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The Borley Rectory incident section leaves me with many questions. What were his experiences and why is the rectory considered to be haunted? Was it a single incident (as the section title seems to imply) or a series of them, as "experiences" seems to imply? Most importantly, why is this incident considered important enough to have its own section?

Expanded and renamed, I don't think it was ever called an "incident" anyway. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Overall a nice article. I know it looks like a lot of issues above, but they are mostly nit-picky, so I am placing the review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a couple of comments under the references section that you haven't commented on or marked as done. How is work on these issues progressing? Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added comments on the progress of them - not so much as you can see, but some.
Things are looking really good. I think the only thing holding up GA status is the reference for the school song section. Don't worry about the page numbers - these aren't a requirement for GA status, just something that would be nice. Keep me updated on your progress! Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the uncited information would work. Just keep whatever you can reference and toss (or comment out) the rest, and then readd it when/if you are able to find a reference. Dana boomer (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everything looks good with the article, so I am passing it to GA status. Very nice work! It's truely unfortunate that your local library is closed for so long - I'm not sure what I would do if mine did that :) Dana boomer (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]