Talk:Ted Heaton/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: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 09:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

• did duty as a prisoner - typo? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, should be "at a prisoner camp". Will correct on next edit. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• grounds of disability - what disability? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure, as I only have the ancestry overview of the document which details the type as "disability". However, I only just realised that the platform holding the original document, fold3, is also part of the wikipedia library so I will request access to this in order to see if further information can be extracted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the fold3 application to be looked at, so when that's done I can hopefully update on this. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I now have access to fold3 and can see that the disability was noted as gallstones, which I have been able to clarify within the article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• favourably by Poland's Director of Education - how did we get to Poland? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand the question being asked? I have rephrased closer to how it's conveyed in the main prose, but without fully understanding the concern, I can't be convinced it's a sufficient response. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

General

• Attempts to cross the channel - section seems superfluous Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, so I have removed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Ancestry is an unreliable source. What makes it ok to use in this circumstance? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just to pick up on this comment directly, Ancestry includes many official documents (birth & death certificates, passenger lists when travelling between countries, census records etc), all of which validate the information they are citing. I do not believe I have referenced ancestry for user-generated data, which is of course unreliable. I am unsure if you have an ancestry subscription via the wikipedia library, but if you do, this can be validated. Happy to for this to be scrutinsed further if needs be, but the article you linked to concurs with this consensus. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• 1,100 mm - any reason why we aren't using cm, or m? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess because the convert template in this instance defaults ft to mm, so I have overridden the parameter to specify metres. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• "amid an outburst of cheering", with fine weather conditions and a "scorching sun" - I feel like these quotes don't add anything. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I can somewhat see your point. My thoughts when adding was to convey how the source had described the event(s) at the time, however it may be some are unnecessary so will take another look. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'd say there's a lot of quotes that aren't pertainant in this article Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say I think you make a fair point and I have made efforts to reword or simply remove the quotes if it's making a statement without necessarily needing to be attributed to an individual. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Lee Vilenski: Thanks. As you have put on hold, can I assume here that you have completed the review and the entire extent of your review comments have now been published? I observe you didn't acknowledge the ancestry response so will work on the basis you accept my comment there. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  • • Sorry, yeah, I'm happy with that response. I don't think I have anything else, although I do a sweep once the original items have been addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I feel like I have responded to all your points now, so would appreciate if you could give you assessment or any further suggestions that may be required for the article to have a good designation. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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.