Talk:The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 09:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually own this book, in a Victorian edition. I should probably dig it out and scan a few of the engravings, but first, let's review the article as it is, shall we?

I have bolded the only actionable point, but (spoiler alert) do not consider it sufficient to block GA promotion.

First of all, this is a very well-done article. The pull quotes are well-selected, and help give a flavour of the work that wouldn't be gotten from merely describing the contents. Good job there.

Let's go through the criteria briefly:

Well-written? Definitely. This article is moving rapidly towards FA quality.

Verifiable with no original research: There are a few bits without citations, but all of these are explicitly describing specific letters from the book, and, as such, have very obvious sources. However, if you plan to take this to FA, they may get a little more pedantic on this point, so be ready to provide page numbers in footnotes, if necessary.

One minor error: The section "Victorian and Edwardian eras" only includes Edwardian commentary, and should be renamed or expanded, your choice.

Broad in its coverage: This article does a good job at both describing the work and reactions to it. Very good work.

Neutral: I don't see any problems here. There's obviously a bit of passion here, but relevant criticisms are covered fairly.

Stable: Fine.

Images: It could use a few more images, but that's not a reason to block the promotion.

In short, this is definitely GA quality. I'm going to put it in Biology and Medicine, subcategory Books; move it if you think another category is better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for doing the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]