Talk:Wilfrid/GA1

GA Review

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

I will conduct the initial review of this article within the next seven to nine days. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Initial Comments:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I am still reviewing the article for MOS compliance and prose quality.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Pass. This is a well-referenced article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Pass

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Pass

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Pass

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am still reviewing article for criterion 1. My overall impression is positive. Majoreditor (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts and questions on the articles prose and structure:

• The lead is somewhat longer than what one finds in similarly-sized articles. Can it be slimmed down and still be a good encapsulation of the article?
• The last paragraph in the "Resignation and death" is better suited for inclusion in the "Legacy" section.

More to follow shortly. Majoreditor (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed a bit on the lead, I'm not sure there is much more fat to cut. The article is 71KB, and WP:LEDE recommends 3 to 4 paragraphs for any article over 35KB.

Moved the paragraph. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's almost there. Just two other items:

• Citations 1 and 2 should list the publisher of the websites. (IMO, Citation #2 ( Patron Saint Index entry on Saint Wilfrid accessed on 12 September 2007 ) is a marginally reliable source, but I won't challenge it.)

They have been added, but they had full citations in the references section. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please add commas between the author and the work for all citations unless you can point me to an accepted citation style which omits punctuation between the two.

That system has been accepted at FAC for nine FAs I've nominated, but I've added the commas per your request. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are the final two items. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Job well done once again, Ealdgyth. GA Pass. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Very unimportant footnote to issue raised above re. punctuation in citations, just in case anyone's interested: WP:CITE#HOW says: "There are a number of styles used in different fields. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent." almost-instinct 17:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)