Talk:Hugh Beadle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 13:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Expect the review to be finished around this time tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Finished a little earlier than I expected. Extremely well written and researched article; well done. Just a couple minor points i'd like addressed/clarified. I'm sure it won't take you long. Freikorp (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies to my issues, all of which I consider addressed. I'm passing this now. Congratulations. Freikorp (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Freikorp. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Initial review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

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

   "regarding the responsible government campaign under Charles Coghlan as "a pretty wild bunch of jingoes", Beadle recalled." Who exactly made this statement that Beadle is recalling? Just clarifying as what i'm getting is it was the consensus of his whole family. Would it be more appropriate to attribute it to just his parents? (or based on what the source says, can you attribute it to just one of his parents?) Also "the only son and eldest child"; so he had sisters then? How many? Reference?

   The full quotation (from Facchini directly, but originally from a 1972 interview with Beadle as part of the "Oral History Project" of the then-Rhodesian National Archives) is about his family in general, who he says were "all Conservatives. They were keen Unionists [that is, in favour of joining the Union of South Africa]. They wanted Union and to follow Huggins and I think as far as my sympathies went I was a Unionist too because we always regarded the other crowd, the Responsible Government crowd, as a pretty wild bunch of jingoes." The referendum took place when Beadle was 17, so he wouldn't have been able to vote himself, but it still seems appropriate to me to include him in the family consensus. He had two younger sisters (Palley ref). —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks for clarifying, and for adding the information about his siblings. Freikorp (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   Just confirming that "He was created CMG in 1957" reads OK to you. I found the word "created" confusing is regards to an award, a word I note does not appear at the awards article, though I should mention I know little about awards of this kind.

   This is the wording used in the source and it shows up on Google, so I think it is usable. Have substituted "appointed CMG", is this better? —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   Seems like a better choice of word to me, thanks. Freikorp (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   "A primary school in Bulawayo was named after him." I'm assuming this was also in 1961. If so, can you clarify this somehow?

   I'm afraid I can't find an exact reference for when this was, but I can't find any mention of Hugh Beadle Primary School (or any Hugh Beadle school) before 1961 so I presume it was around this time. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Freikorp (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   I had to google what "beyond the pale" meant, as i'd not heard the term before, though i'm sure it's a quite common term in the UK and surrounding area. This isn't a fail point in itself, just something you may wish to keep in mind.

   OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   Only brought this up as per WP:IDIOM; wiktionary has an entry on beyond the pale which you could consider linking to. Up to you. Freikorp (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   Consider whether "to this day" is an appropriate choice of words as per WP:REALTIME. Again, this is just a suggestion.

   In my opinion it is not such a problem as the reader can easily check the date of the accompanying reference to see when "to this day" means. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   Sounds reasonable to me. Freikorp (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   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:

   "Some in Rhodesia criticised Beadle for going to London, or accused him of siding with Gibbs." Can you specify who, with an inline citation?

   The source (Facchini) just says "In Rhodesia, Beadle came under criticism for his mission [going to London] and was even accused of siding with the Governor." I've put a citation inline. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

   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: