Talk:Peter III (cat)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter III (cat)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 22:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

First assessment

Review forthcoming. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

​First assessment completed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 6 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):

   Completed copy edit of article.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Added some archive URLs and fixed some cites.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   There are a three failed verifications:

   • The source cited for the proposition that Peter II died in Whitehall does not state that he died in Whitehall.
   • "Peter attracted widespread public attention following an appearance on the BBC current affairs programme Tonight in 1958" – the source cited says only that Peter "became somewhat of a celebrity, appearing on the BBC in 1958 and pictured in newspapers and magazine, including October 1962's 'Woman's Realm'", not that he appeared on Tonight, nor that he attracted "widespread public attention" because of his appearance on the BBC, which is what the sentence as written currently implies.
   • The quote about the note accompanying Peter's coffin requires a cite. The sources that were previously at the end of the sentence before the copy edit did not include that quote.

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Used Earwig's tool.

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.:

   Checked edit history and talk page.

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):

   The fair use rationales for the two images appear to be sufficient, but the funeral photo should be attributed to the Associated Press per the captions contained in several of the sources cited in the article.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   If you're able to visit The National Archives, you might be interested in seeing if you can find any interesting public domain photographs (for this and other Chief Mouser articles) in this file.

@Voorts All done now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

A pleasure working with you once again. I think a description of the funeral procession would be a great DYK nomination. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the failed verifications; me being an idiot, putting the refs in the wrong place. Cheers pal. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Peter III, a cat employed by the British government, was buried in Ilford with "full honours"? Source: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/917642950/ "Full honours at funeral of Home Office cat"
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Keith Raniere

Improved to Good Article status by Tim O'Doherty (talk). Self-nominated at 20:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Peter III (cat); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I took the liberty of adding "with full honours" to its proper place in the article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)