Talk:Winston Churchill/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pi (talk · contribs) 21:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Beginning review, this is quite an article Pi (Talk to me!) 21:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi, and thank you for taking this on. I should mention that the article has recently been the subject of a WP:LENGTH improvement drive and we have created several sub-articles so that the bulk of the content could be relocated with the sections here reduced to summaries. We've reduced the readable prose size from nearly 130 kB (far too big) to a manageable 94kB. Do please let me know when you have any questions and I'll do my best to answer them. Good luck. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished tying up some loose ends and I promise I will not touch the article again now till you have finished your initial review. I realised over the weekend that the endpieces were oddments that should be consolidated into a single legacy section as is standard for political biographies. I apologise for not spotting that sooner and hope it hasn't inconvenienced you. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In the autumn of 1895, he and Reginald Barnes went to Cuba to report on the war of independence" - This sentence isn't sufficiently explained. Since he was a commissioned army officer, it should be explained why he was reporting rather than fighting. Especially since he later had a career as a civilian writer.

Amended. Use of "reporting" was an error – Churchill and Barnes went to Cuba as military observers, not as reporters. The circumstances are clear in Jenkins.

Politics and South Africa: 1899–1901: It's not clear exactly when he left the army. When it talks about him standing for parliament and writing for the Morning Post the reader would assume that his was after he left the army, but later on he was appointed a lieutenant in the South African Light Horse regiment. Did he re-join the army? Or were his other activities done while he was a serving officer? This needs some clarity.

Additional content re final visit to India. You're absolutely right. He was in the 4th Hussars for nearly three years till the spring of 1899 but he was temporarily attached to the 21st Lancers for the Nile campaign. After Omdurman, he decided to quit the army but he had to return to India and settle everything with the Hussars. As soon as he returned to England, he plunged into politics. I added a bit more about his brief South African commission – until January 1900, he had been only a journalist in South Africa.

Asquith's government presented the reforms within a People's Budget.[114] This was rejected by the Conservative peers who dominated the House of Lords.: This could so with clarification what the People's Budget was, and why it was rejected.

Yes, needs explanation. This was Lloyd George's famous budget. I've made some additions to summarise DLG's purpose and method of raising funds. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hello, Pi, I really must apologise. I'd somehow knocked this off my watchlist and I've only just found your comments. I'll get straight onto it. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Pi. I've addressed the points which you rightly raised above. Please let me know if there is anything further needed on these. Hope you enjoy the rest of the article. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm promoting this now. Great article, sorry it took a while Pi (Talk to me!) 19:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi, and thank you ever so much for doing the review. You took quite a task on. There's no doubt it can be further improved but whether it can ever get to FAC level is anyone's guess. Thanks again, all the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]