Talk:Shepseskare/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 18:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is clearly of GA standard, and with the smallest of tweaks will meet the GA criteria in full.

• Cardinal numbers: for numbers up to and including 10 it is usual to write them in words, so that in the lead "reigned for 7 years" would be "reigned for seven years", and so on through the text.

Y Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• "However" – ignoring one in a quotation, there are four "howevers" in your main text, all of which, in my opinion, are unnecessary and just clog up your prose. The meaning would be just as clear without them.

Y Done, I have removed them. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• WP:ENGVAR: The article is mostly in AmEng, but a few BrEng spellings have crept in:
  • "emphasises" (for "emphasizes")
  • "levelled" (for "leveled")
  • "analysing" (for "analyzing").

Best to Americanise them for consistency.

Y Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Bibliography
  • The Wright link is dead

Y Correct link to Reuters source added. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• • The older books (pre-ISBN) should preferably have OCLC numbers added, which you can easily find at WorldCat. I have added one for the Jacquet-Gordon book as an example.
  • The ISBNs are a mishmash of 10 and 13 digit versions, and some are hyphenated and some aren't. I don't regard addressing this as essential for GA, but if you are thinking of going on to FAC you'll need to fix this.

Y Done, now all required oclc have been added and all ISBN are in 13 digits format. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are my only suggestions. A fine article. – Tim riley talk 18:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Tim riley I have implemented all the modifications. I am thinking at putting this up as a FAC afterwards. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Good. Please let me know when you get to FAC. Tim riley talk 15:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure! Iry-Hor (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: