Talk:One Day in History/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vibhijain (talk · contribs) 15:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Looks like a decent article. However prose seems the be the only worry.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

Lead

• The first sentence of a lead should tell that what makes this topic notable. You should tell that that who organized that initiative in the first sentence. Something like - "One Day in History was a single-day initiative by several UK heritage organisations that aimed to provide a historical record of the everyday life of the British public in the early 21st century."

• Done.

• Described as the "world's biggest blog" - by whom?

• A couple of reliable sources described it as such, including both The Guardian and Sky News. Should I list both?

• In that case, leave it like that only.

• Please use "United Kingdom (UK)" in place of UK at its first appearance. You may use only the abbreviation later in the article.

• MOS:ABBR lists "UK" as an exemption to this rule.

• Sorry for that, it was not in my knowledge.

• 100-to-650-word diary entries >> diary entries of 100–650 words

• Done.

• an official website >> the official website of the initiative

• Done.

• formed part >> formed a part

• Done.

• until 1 November – 46,000 in total were uploaded in this time, including many from schoolchildren and celebrities >> until 1 November, and 46,000 entries were uploaded in this time, many of which were from students and celebrities

• Done.

• archive of diary entries was moved into >> archive of the diary entries was moved to

• Done.

• The lead says that the archive was moved to UK Web Archive, but then the article says that it was moved to both the UK Web Archive the University of Sussex

• Fixed.

• The lead should tell briefly about the public and media response

• Added a brief sentence about the response.

Project section

• launched as part of >> launched as a part of

• Done.

• led by heritage organisations >> led by several heritage organisations

• Done

• to draw attention to the importance of history in everyday life >> in order to draw attention towards the importance of history in everyday life

• Done.

• Members of the British public were invited each to write a blog of what they did on 17 October 2006, then to submit it to become part of an large online diary >> British people were invited to write a blog of what they did on 17 October 2006, and to submit it for becoming a part of an large online diary

• Done.

• with ties to the country >> of British origin

• Done.

• The date 17 October >> 17 October was chosen as the date

• I'm willing to change this, but WP:NUMERAL suggests that it is best either to spell numbers that begin sentences out in full, or else rewrite the sentence.

• What about something like "The date was chosen to be 17 October"?

• Done.

• Historian Dan Snow explained the >> Historian Dan Snow explained that the

• Done.

• The organisers hoped that contributors could also discuss in their submission how history or heritage had impacted on their lives that day >> The organisers hoped that the contributors could also discuss the impact of history or heritage on their lives that day in their submissions

• Done.

• between 100 and 650 >> 100–650

• Done

• To allow time for drafting and proofreading >> To allow some time for drafting and proofreading

• Done.

• Schoolchildren >> Students

• This is something else that I would be willing to change, but my only concern is that a reader inadvertently think that this referred to university students, rather than children still at school.

• I guess that you are right. Leave it like that only.

• voiced their support >> voiced their support or the initiative

• Done.

Public response sub-section

• had grown >> grew

• Done.

• had been posted >> were posted

• Done.

• had been received >> were received

• Done.

• both in the >> in both the

• Done.

Further comments

• "The campaign received interest ... and The Sunday Times." is a little confusing. Even small things can get a mention a 2-3 newspapers. What about something like "The campaign received mixed reviews, with Institute of Historical Research's David Cannadine and The Guardian's Dave Hill speaking positively of it, whereas journalist John Plunkett termed it to be a "a historical record of people with computers."

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• The article says "draw attention to the importance of history in everyday life", but the source says,"provide future generations with a huge database of information from all sections of society, to show how we lived and, in particular, what we thought about our heritage."

• Added a source that verifies this claim.

• The article says that the project was partly inspired by Mass Observation, but the source only says inspired, and not partly

• Done.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• The Guardian article also says - "Two things. First, it's not going to be a historical record of people in 2006, it's going to be a historical record of people with computers in 2006, which are quite different things."
• Dave Hill of Guardian said,"The National Trust's One Day In History mass blog was a brilliant idea."
• "All 29,000 schools in Britain have been sent leaflets about the campaign, which is supported by The Daily Telegraph." [1]

• I've added the Dave Hill comment, but I believe that the other two points are already represented in the article...

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   All the best improving the article ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Vibhijain! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, this is a dead link. It is not a problem as we accept dead link, but you still may like to check for any archived version or place Template:Dead link. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Article passed Good work. And sorry for the delay. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• That's great, thanks very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)