Talk:Reading, Berkshire/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Failedwizard (talk • contribs • count) 23:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spelling and grammar are fine, definitely clear and fairly concise - going to be a little picky here - there's a few things that just a touch clunky: ~~Hugh Cook Faringdon was hanged, drawn and quartered in the history section, but only hanged in the religion section.~~ ~~I also think 'confluence' is a pretty word but not accessible to all readers...~~ ~~I'm not a fan of Church of the Sacred Heart, Reading being a redlink - maybe remove link (or write stub)~~ ~~'or some twenty years until 2006, Reading was also known for its WOMAD Festival.' begs the question, what happened in 2006?~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I should say straight off that I'm very happy with the lead, I'm aware that's been a problem in the past, and I think it's a big improvement since the previous nomination. Generally no problems here.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Lots and lots of references, which is great and largely online in one form or another, which is also great - ~~I'd like to see your Bibliography with a few more links - I did the Slade reference on the way past.~~
	2b. 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).	I've been spot checking every seventh reference, generally very good. (70 is a little weak) - but... I'm not really happy about the Economy section - it appears to be a score of links to company 'contact us' pages. Would you mind having a look for some Secondary_sources that could perhaps cover more than one company at a time? better, and admititly I've had a bit of a google and not been able to come up with much.. bit of a hostage to fortune for any company wandering past though... ~~'whose primary concern is to resist the urbanisation of their district', I can't quite see where this is supported in [50]... have I missed something?~~ ~~Okay it's a different reference now, but I'm still not following how it supports the urbanisation statment - by the way, you guys can write here too... I might just need it explaining to me...~~
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems, slightly hint in the Economy section, but that will vanish as sources change
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Checked with some friends from the area and they were fairly impressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think this is a excellent example of summary style, article might be a little long for some but I'm quite happy.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Hmm, slightly on the promotional side, but not particularly bothersome - I can't think of any obvious negatives that you've missed out though.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I see no reverts, no heated talk page, no problem - very civil editors.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	~~This is probably fine, but it's an area of weakness for me so I'm going to quickly tap another editor for help.~~ Been given the all-clear
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant, well captioned and generally lovely.
	7. Overall assessment.

I'm going to stop there tonight, and pick this up again shortly Failedwizard (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's all I've got, some very minor changes and we'll be cool. :) Failedwizard (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have placed article offically 'on hold' for a week in case editors have other commitments :0) Failedwizard (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]