Talk:Richard Rennison

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Rennison/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. I'll begin with a close readthrough of the text in the next few days, noting any initial issues on this review page, and then will start the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

This is a well-written and well-sourced article about a charming bit of history; I only have a few small quibbles.

• "Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939" is this the proper name of the act? The mid-phrase parenthetical seems a little unusual.
• "claimed to have" -- avoid "claimed" per WP:WTA; perhaps just "stated that he had" (or see below)
• "were provided by the blacksmiths as he was certain" -- fix change of plural to singular on blacksmiths/he
• "1939 Marriage act in Scotland" -- capitalization and word order is different here than above; probably best to make it consistent.
• "When the new law came into force in 1940, Rennison had performed 5,147 marriages" -- in the lead, the prose appears to be hedging its bets, attributing this statement only to Rennison; here it's presented as fact. The Glasgow Herald appears to say this flatly, so I'd say it's okay to do the same in the lead, unless you have reason to doubt Rennison's statement.

Since this one is so close, I'll go ahead and start the checklist now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

All sorted (I hope). The odd parenthesis are indeed the official name, it's a weird custom of the British parliamentary system, when dealing with a specific country within the United Kingdom. I've updated the later version to match it. The 5,147 figure I've seen in a number of sources, including postcards, books and newspapers, so I'm happy to update the lead to be firm. Thanks for your time reviewing this! Worm^TT(talk) 12:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that does the trick. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Prose is clear, correct, and interesting. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass