Talk:Thomas Bridges (missionary)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: Ryan Vesey
| 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. | Issues identified below. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Issues identified below. |
| 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. | The "References" section is fine. |
|
|
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). | Issues identified below. This is the biggest problem with the article. |
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Since so much is unsourced, I can't tell. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Not a problem. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Not a problem. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Not a problem. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Not a problem. |
| 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. | Issue identified below. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Not a problem. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. |
- 2b: There are major sourcing issues. Entire paragraphs are not sourced, even ones with interpretations such as "...was most likely due to...". At other times, only some statements in a paragraph are sourced, while others are not. This is the biggest problem with the article.
- 1b: The lede should mention his return to England and his marriage. I also think that there should be a paragraph break before "After being adopted", since the text clearly switches from a quick summary to a narrative of his life.
- 1b: Use of names is inconsistent. Generally, the first use of someone's name in an article (or, sometimes, the first use in a section) should use the full name, with title if appropriate. You do this fine. But subsequent uses need only a last name. You frequently refer to "George Despard" or "George Pakenham Despard" when "Despard" would do. When Stirling is introduced, it's fine to call him "the Rev. Waite Hockin Stirling", but subsequent mentions should just be "Stirling" without "the rev". (It's particularly odd when you say "Bishop Stirling... was installed as bishop." He must not have been "Bishop" Stirling before.)
Done
- 1a: Similarly to the above, in the "Family" section, the names are difficult to follow. It looks like each child has a different last name, which I don't think is the case. You should say "Thomas and Mary had their first child, also named Mary Ann Varder", and after that show a last name for each child.
- 1a: In the first paragraph of "Expedition", you start at 1853, but then jump back to several facts about his time in Nottingham. That material should come first, perhaps in the "Early life" section.
- 1a: Several parts of "Expedition" are unclear. "Following the failure of Gardiner's expeditions..." To where, and what made them failures? "...led the next attempt." Attempt at what? "He took with him his second wife..." Took where? "...with the local people..." Local to where? Also, the phrasing "...some of them learned English and some of the English,..." sounds confusing and should be reworded.
- 1a: The 2nd "to England" should be dropped in "asking permission to return to England. When the society gave its approval, he and his family returned to England". Done
- 1b: "Fuegians" should be wikilinked to make it clear, if Tierra del Fuego has not yet been mentioned in the body (outside the lede). And "Yaghans" needs a wikilink in the note. Done
- 1a: The source says that the Doterel explosion was an accident. The article should mention that. Done
- 1a: The final paragraph is a bit confusing. One of the sentences isn't a sentence. And the last sentence mentions a monument erected in "his" honor, after a sentence about Mary Ann, who was not a him.
- 6a: The copyright tag for File:Thomas Bridges with family.jpg is incorrect. (The photo was probably taken in 1883, photographer unknown. If the photographer was 25 at the time and lived to 65, then the copyright holder would not have died over 100 years ago.) I think
{{PD-old-70}}would be fine though.
I understand the nominator is on Wikibreak. I'm going to close this as a non-successful nomination at this time. If you later fix these problems, feel free to renominate. – Quadell (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)