Talk:Epsom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 22:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have begun reviewing the article Epsom. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. ––FormalDude talk 22:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

Hi @FormalDude: Thanks for picking up the review. I look forward to working with you. I see that you have already made a couple of changes to the article:

You have removed the sentence about the death of Emily Davison from the lead.

Davison's death following the 1913 Derby is one of the most important events in the history of Women's suffrage in the UK. Almost every British citizen is aware of the event and it is taught in every school. It is critical to the re-shaping of UK parliamentary democracy that takes place following the end of the First World War. Given the fundamental importance of the event in our nation's history, it must be mentioned in the lead.

You have changed "is" to "was" and "probably" to "likely" in the sentence "The town is first recorded as Ebesham in the 10th century and its name probably derives from that of a Saxon landowner."

The original version is correct in British English. (The present tense is used, because the record still exists and "probably" is preferred over "likely".)

I will therefore revert your changes. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the clarification Mertbiol. My review of the lead section makes me believe this article should be fast tracked to GA. I will get started on my review of the body sections. ––FormalDude talk 22:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @FormalDude: I look forward to your comments. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Toponymy section

• Citation #3 missing author.
• No comma needed in first sentence.
• Oxford comma missing in second sentence.
• Why is the name sometimes formatted in italics and sometimes in quotations? I believe it should be one or the other.

Geography section

• Second sentence of Geology subsection missing oxford comma
• Third sentence of Geology subsection does not need commas.
• Final sentence of Geology subsection does not need commas.
• Some sentences in the Geology subsection are missing citations. I assume they are already cited elsewhere and just need to be referenced.

––FormalDude talk 23:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @FormalDude: Oxford commas are only used in British English if a list is unclear without them. 99% of the time they are not necessary and are therefore not used. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mertbiol: Oxford commas are commonly used in British English. Its name comes from the Oxford University Press (OUP), where for over a century it has been standard in the Oxford Style Manual. See MOS:OXFORD which states that it is common to use them when ambiguity is caused without one. There are several instances where ambiguity is caused, so the article should make consistent use of the oxford comma. ––FormalDude talk 23:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @FormalDude: Yes that's right. Oxford Commas are only used when ambiguity is caused without one. None of the instances that you have identified so far require an Oxford Comma. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

But they do cause ambiguity. It can be mistaken that the last two items in the lists are one item when there is no oxford comma to separate them individually. ––FormalDude talk 23:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Professionally written. Only comment is it needs to follow MOS:OXFORD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Notes and references are quite well done. Very few if any mistakes, possible future FAC.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Goes in depth where it needs to, particularly in history. Provides a world-view.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Revision history shows stability.

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

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

   Makes excellent use of images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A very special thanks to Mertbiol for their time and effort spent bringing this article to GA! They did a great job. ––FormalDude talk 00:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @FormalDude: for your review. Thanks also to @Murgatroyd49: and @Polyamorph: for their feedback and support in preparing the article for GAN. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)