Talk:Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet/GA1

GA Review

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

Notice of intent

I have decided to take on the task of reviewing this article. I'll have a quick-fail criteria review up shortly. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick-fail criteria review

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources. OK
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way. OK
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. OK
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. OK
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. OK

• Conclusion: I have found that the article does not fall foul of the quick-fail criteria. Therefore, I will be moving onto a proper GA review shortly. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   This is the only falling down point, in my opinion. I have added citation needed tags to sentences I believe should be cited.

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   As of now, I feel the article is very good, and close to being of GA quality. It just needs a few more citations, and once that happens, I cannot see how I cannot then pass. For now, I will put the article on hold for 7 days, or until the citations have been added, and then re-assess. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your speedy review. I've added the cites you requested, two from Tracey's comprehensive biography, and one from Gardiner's excellent study on frigate design and construction during the period. A note on the article title, 'Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet' is in fact correct according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles); the specific section is point four of the 'British peerage' section:

Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix.

In the case of Collier, this disambiguation is needed to distinguish him from George Collier, who was also a distinguished Royal Navy officer of the period (just to add to the confusion!). Benea (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the move. I have requested, at the time of writing, that a relevant re-direct is deleted so I can move the page back. Thank you very much for adding the cites. Once the page is moved back, I will upgrade the article to GA class. Great work.  :) JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)