Talk:Arthur Gilligan/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Sarastro1 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will be working my way through the article and adding any queries where I see fit. Feel free to make corrections, or correct me as I go along.

General

  • No problems with imaging.
  • No concerns about the reliability of sources.
  • No dab links, nor dead links.
  • Ref 60 was published in The Observer, not The Guardian.
  • As far as I'm aware of, The Guardian was referred to as The Manchester Guardian So should it be that for Refs 17 and 23, not The Guardian (Manchester)?
  • Ref 62 was published on 5 January 2010.

Lead

  • Very clear and precise. As a generalised point, the lead should act as a summary for the entire article and make the reader want to continue, which it has done for me. Perhaps you could remove the 'and' in "...came to the notice of the Australian secret service, and it is possible..." as I think it is redundant, and replace that and the comma with a semicolon.

Early life

  • I take it the name of the daughter is not accessible?
  • Should First World War be in wikilinks or not?

Cricket at Cambridge

  • What does (six for 52) mean?

England captain

  • "Following heavy losses to Australia in two Test series immediately following the war, the England selectors needed to appoint a new captain," just a query: was that because the captain resigned after the Australia series?
  • To be honest, it's a little vague. Captains didn't really resign in those days, and the losing captains just sort of ... faded away and weren't in contention for a place in the team. So it's hard to pin it down precisely. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Political concerns

  • Replace comma with full stop after "but was popular in Britain in the mid-1920s"

Style and technique

Personal life

  • Why is the BBC wikilinked under "A BBC programme in 2004", but not a few paragaphs before where it states "He was also a member of the BBC radio commentary team"

I will give this another read through (sometime this week hopefully) once comments have been addressed and will be happy to pass, given it meets the criteria. Great prose and very comprehensive, enjoyable read in all. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply