Talk:Frederick Perceval, 11th Earl of Egmont/GA1

Latest comment: 3 days ago by IntentionallyDense in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Nominator: Roc0ast3r (talk · contribs) 20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 23:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply


Will review soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@IntentionallyDense: Thanks for your review! I believe I have addressed all your comments now.  RONIN  TALK  03:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks so much. I think this article meets GA criteria now! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Review

edit
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Minor prose issues highlighted below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2b. 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). Spot-checked most of the sources available to me and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2c. it contains no original research. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I did look for other sources but couldn't find any so I would say this article is broad enough. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are some areas that I feel you could expand on which I've detailed below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall assessment. On hold until the nominator can address issues with 1a and 3a. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Broadness

edit

Prose

edit
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.