Talk:Richard Buxton (botanist)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- hey, I'll review this! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- review
A wonderful article. Just a few things:
- Should the book pages to his book be in lower case: e.g. iii, iv etc. as that's the way they show up on the online copy.
- Good point -
Done Richerman (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good point -
- I assume he wasn't married etc., going by the sources.
- Not as far as I know but I couldn't be certain. Richerman (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Would love to fit in an image of one of his favourite flowers but I don't think it can be done:
- Good idea - I'll have a go. Richerman (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps some mention of how cut off the "pent-up dwellers in the crowded city" were from the land. It's quite heartbreaking.
- He writes: "...I hope that the lords of the soil will yet allow the pent-up dwellers in the crowded city to walk about and view the beauties of creation [and] derive much true pleasure from seeing the sons of toil ... exploring the wonders of nature, after a week of labour." And he goes on to say: "I therefore would venture to request the landowners, at least to preserve the old footpaths which cross their fields and woods, if they should decline to allow fresh ones to be made ... My fellow-workmen, living in the back streets and narrow alleys of large towns, I would invite to go into the green fields and fresh air of the country ... (and more) xii - xiii
- Maybe I could put in something about about the Committee for Public Walks, Gardens & Playgrounds from this article I wrote some time ago. What do you think? Richerman (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- You mean Peel Park, Salford? It shows that people were aware of this truly sad problem for "the humbler classes", though Burton seems to want access to nature in fields and woods. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, got the spacing wrong. The need for parks was because people didn't have access to the countryside and I think a bit about this could be used to illustrate the problem of "the pent-up dwellers in the crowded city". Actually, Mere Clough in Prestwich, one of the places mentioned where he botanized, was sold to the council along with other farmland and countryside - which was then privately owned and is now part of the Prestwich Forest Park, so he did get his wish. Kersal Moor was also eventually sold to the council and is a recreation area and Local Nature Reserve. Perhaps I could round it off with a mention of these? I've now added the speedwell image and one of his grave. Richerman (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Having given that a bit of thought I think maybe it would have to be added as a footnote after the "I hope that the lords of the soil will yet allow..." quotation as I can't think of a way to fit it in the article text. Richerman (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, got the spacing wrong. The need for parks was because people didn't have access to the countryside and I think a bit about this could be used to illustrate the problem of "the pent-up dwellers in the crowded city". Actually, Mere Clough in Prestwich, one of the places mentioned where he botanized, was sold to the council along with other farmland and countryside - which was then privately owned and is now part of the Prestwich Forest Park, so he did get his wish. Kersal Moor was also eventually sold to the council and is a recreation area and Local Nature Reserve. Perhaps I could round it off with a mention of these? I've now added the speedwell image and one of his grave. Richerman (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- You mean Peel Park, Salford? It shows that people were aware of this truly sad problem for "the humbler classes", though Burton seems to want access to nature in fields and woods. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- reply
- whatever you think. In any case, it passes. It's a pleasure to read it.
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
- B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Provides references to all sources:
- B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Provides references to all sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Main aspects are addressed:
- B. Remains focused:
- A. Main aspects are addressed:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- PASS!
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your review and suggestions - the speedwell picture certainly adds a bit of colour. I'll give the other background stuff some more thought and add somethng in. Richerman (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)