Talk:Peta (cat)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 14:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tim O'Doherty, I'm going to be reviewing this article. The period when you said you will not be able to respond starts in about a week. If the review isn't done then we can pause it for the period but I would be surprised if it takes that long.

• " Upon her arrival in London, she was renamed Peta in honour of her predecessors: Peter, Peter II and Peter III." To avoid confusion I would suggest moving this line into the main body of the text.
• "and had not been toilet trained."- change toilet trained to house trained and either use the redirect House training or link directly to Housebreaking.
• "Home Office staff were told not to feed her morsels of food, as, by February 1967, Peta had become "inordinately fat"" - This could be a good point to nominate to DYK once this review is done.
• "She was not heard of again," - change this to something more specific (e.g she was not mentioned in offical records again)
• Two instances of this source can be combined into one.
• This source also mentions an improvement in her living conditions compared to her predecessors due to her background which seems like it might be interesting to mention.
• The copyright checker was happy enough. The only sauce it noted any real correlation with was this one. Which I think was probably largely based on an older version of this page.
• My spot checks suggested the sources are fine.

Hi Llewee. I've addressed some of your comments. I attempted moving the note's contents into the article body, but I somehow managed to break the syntax (shows just how tech-y I am) so I'm unable to help there; my apologies. I can't work out what exactly the NA source is trying to say about the working conditions of the Home Office: "Before Peta’s arrival, it was decided to make some adjustments to the working conditions of the Home Office’s cat" doesn't make much sense to me (what adjustments? what exactly were the "conditions" they had to work in? catching mice in a corridor?), but I have tried to carry out the rest of your advice. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

On the conditions thing, to some extent they were probably messing around but what I interpreted it to mean in substance was that she got a higher wage than her predecessors. If you don't want to say anything about it then I won't fail the review based on that.--Llewee (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee Hm. It is in the text somewhat already: "She received a 5s per week living allowance from the Treasury as "a mouser" [This was double what the previous mouser, Peter III, had received, at 2s 6d.]", but if that's not enough, I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee Are you OK with the changes made so far? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes Tim O'Doherty, can you please combine citation 9 and citation 26 into one and then I will pass it.--Llewee (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee Done. I've deleted the instance of the source in the note, as the same source is used further below. Thanks for the review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed) }}