Talk:Paul Kruger/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 20:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Review

I'm not sure what this impressive article is doing at GAN rather than FAC, but here it undeniably is and I assess it against the GA criteria accordingly.

I have no points of any consequence to raise about the prose at this stage; at FAC I may have a few quibbles, but the prose easily meets the GA standard. There is, if you please, one duplicate blue-link – to the Johannesburg Reform Committee in the "Rising tensions" section, and the link to "burghers" in the lead needs disambiguating. You are, I am glad to see, subversive about antiquated full stops after people's initials (so am I, but don't tell the MoS) and so it might be consistent to pipe St. Galen to knock that pointless point out too. That apart:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Let me now spoil things a bit by saying that before you put this up for FA – which I trust you will – I really think you should review the length. The article weighs in at 14,689 words of "readable prose", in the WP measure; there are a few FA biogs of similar length about national leaders (I own up to being joint author of one of them) but you may well get flak at FAC. Still, that's for another day. Meanwhile, congratulations on a first class piece of work. – Tim riley talk 10:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the very kind words and the extremely quick review, Tim. I will be taking this to a peer review presently and look forward to seeing the aforementioned quibbles there. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)