Talk:John Neild/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 20:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Frickeg

I will carefully examine the article and begin my review shortly.

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.	Prose is good. All concerns resolved.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is very good, the organization is good, and all MoS guidelines are followed.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references section is good.
	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).	All statements are sourced, and all sources I could check back up the statements.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All major aspects covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	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.	The image is correctly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image is appropriate. I wish there were more, since all images of Neild would be PD, but I can't find any others.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passes all criteria.

This article is well written and well sourced. The only major concern is that the article seems to have been closely paraphrased from the source. The entire "Early life" section is based very closely on the Rutledge source, for instance: each sentence in the source is rewritten and placed in the article in sequential fashion. Although no sentence is word-for-word identical, this section at least is sentence-for-sentence identical, and that is still a copyright concern. More worrying is that I don't have access to the other main source you used, Wilcox, so I can't compare how closely you paraphrased the text from this source. I discussed this all with one of our resident copyright experts (and employee of the Wikimedia Foundation) at User talk:Moonriddengirl#John Neild, so you might want to see that discussion for more info.

I'm sure you had no intention of violating copyright, and I'm absolutely not accusing you of bad faith. Copyright is tricky, and it isn't always obvious what's a violation and what's not. To bring this article up to GA status, you'll have to rewrite all sections of prose so that it doesn't follow the source text so closely, perhaps combining or rearranging sentences, and removing characteristic wording that isn't found outside the source (such as calling the firm "(J. L.) Montefiore, Joseph & Co" instead of "Montefiore, Joseph & Co"). This is true for the parts that use Rutledge, but also for the parts that use Wilcox, if there is close paraphrasing going on from this source as well. If you can do so in the next seven days, I'll reevaluate, and there's a good chance it will pass GA status at that point.

There are more minor concerns: phrases like "as a backbencher" may not be understandable to non-Australians; terms like free trade and Motion of no confidence should be linked; a catalog reference link to Songs 'neath the Southern Cross might be useful; etc. But the above issue should be dealt with first. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 16:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've received access to (part of) the Wilcox, and I'm satisfied that "close paraphrasing" is not an issue regarding this source. Only the Rutledge source material needs revision. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

All concerns have now been resolved. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)