Talk:John Dacey/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing this article to possibly be a Good Article. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 18:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   excessive amount of redlinks, please fix blacksmith

    Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

2. Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   The claim that Dacey died of nephritis is unsourced.

    Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

   Ref#8 does not support statement (Dacey anti-tillite, against Federation), Ref#9 does clearly state Dacey was an anti-billite. (Also, it's not a plural is it?)

   Fixed the plural. It's in ref#9, the newspaper refers to him as "Mr. Dacey, anti-billite, from Sydney". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks. Yes, they all work well together taken as a whole.

   Please check all refs.

   I had a look, but what are you referring to specifically? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

   My concerns have been dealt with, all is well. I hadn't had a chance to check every reference so wanted someone to take another go at them.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Shearonink: See comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

   Congrats! John Dacey is now a Good Article.