Talk:Cyril Stanley Smith/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll complete this in a couple of days...-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

• Good to go with some fixes of refs. See here. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Early life section is cited from only two cites. More are needed. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  Added two more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Just a single line about his death. Needs expansion. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  There are two sentences about his death. What more needs to be said? We kbow when, where and why. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Institute for the Study of Metals is an unnecessary red link. Or just keep it away from the lead and only one instance is needed at the most. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  The lead is considered separately from the body. Per WP:REDLINK: Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• A couple or two images are appreciated, if available. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Later life section needs a split as it covers about 50 years after the WWII. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of lead must be combined as one like he was a British... known for his.... and the like..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• A legacy section is expected so as to prove that he was notable indeed. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  You're asking me to editorialize. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly..well..not exactly. But clearly feel that its important in all ways. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But good to go..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 11:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Result

Placed on hold for a week till the concerns are solved. -The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 08:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
it has passed the GA review. Its a good to go article with nicely cited prose and good in all aspects. I felt a need a legacy section but still its included in the entire matter and deserves the GA tag. Thanks..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 11:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)