Talk:Thames Valley Royals proposal/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay - I remember this when it happened - will read and copyedit as I go and jot queries below...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now where was I .....hmmm....

'~~'it nearly went through - a tad colloquial-sounding....but I can't think of a better phrase - "it nearly came to fruition"? hmmmm~~

OK —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~it derailed at the last minute~~ ~~- " it was derailed at the last minute " (more used to seeing it in passive tense...)~~

OK —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P~~robably replace at least one "Maxwell" with a pronoun in para 2 of lead.~~

Yes —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if we can improve the structure of the lead - currently it has para 1 = very potted summary, paras 2 & 3 are more details....but this makes the article have a three-tiered level of detail. I think maybe rearranging the lead strictly chronologically would be better - otherwise it comes across as repetitive.

Okay. I have trimmed it down and put it more chronologically; what do you think now? —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"~~There was fear in the faces of the older players," he said. "It was a feeling of incredulity, confusion, worry and fear."~~ ~~- bit laboured using "fear" twice in the one sentence....~~

Yes —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~The residents of neither Didcot nor Wallingford elicited much interest~~ ~~- "The residents of neither Didcot nor Wallingford showed much interest" You elicit something in something - i.e. someone eliciting interest out of the locals...~~

Ok, thanks for this —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

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

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

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- nice and tight/interesting read, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Casliber! —Cliftonian (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]