Talk:Wilfrid Eggleston/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 6, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
Perhaps consider adding an infobox to bring out key article info in a quick fashion for our readers?
Copyvio Detector shows no problems here - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Wilfrid+Eggleston&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0 - good job here!
Early life sect - suggest expand, if possible, but at least break apart into two paragraphs.
Career sect - recommend breaking some of the larger paragraphs apart into smaller paragraphs, for increased ease of reader flow for our readers.
Honours, recognition and death - this sect is confusing and sort of could have better chronological order and presentation. Could the sect be expanded a bit more, as well? Please try to fix the timeline presentation in that sect, as now it stands it is out of order.

2. Verifiable?: As there's not too many, please increase article posterity for future verification by archiving all links via archiveurl and archivedate fields to citations with the Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive.

3. Broad in coverage?: Lede intro sect should be expanded a bit more, perhaps to 3 paragraphs, to fully function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable? Upon my inspection of article edit history and article talk page history, article is stable. No outstanding issues here.

6. Images?: Please move this image to Wikimedia Commons -- File:OrionAlberta.jpg you can see Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for more help. Also please standardize this image page with commons:Template:Information, once it is located at Wikimedia Commons.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks for picking this up, I'll do my best to address your suggestions. I would like to add that although I will do my utmost, significant expansion may be tricky given the lack of verifiable sources available online. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

4. Infobox added.

6. Broken down, expanded.

7. Broken down.

8. Chronology amended, expanded.

2. Verifiable?:

Archived using WebCite service.

Note: The reference entitled Archives Search - Library and Archives Canada won't process for some reason. Let me know if this is a major issue.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Lede expanded.

6. Images?:

Uploaded to commons and added description.

I hope this goes a way to passing this article. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, passed as GA. Thanks for being so responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]