Talk:Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

It looks to be a comprehensive, wide-ranging, article, so it should make GA without too much trouble.Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting, wide-ranging article, with a good WP:lead: one of the best leads I've seen recently.

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:

The article was interesting, comprehensive and wide ranging.

"Niggles" / Areas of improvement

1. The article appeared to have been written by a subject matter expert for other subject experts. "Army" is not my area of expertise, or a subject that I have any personal experience. The use of wikilinks, to provide explanation of the technical terms used within the article, needed improving to assist non-subject-expert readers. Corps, Carbines, mobilization, etc, are not terms that I am familiar with, so they need links (but not too many), which were absent, so I added a few during the review for my benefit. On the other hand, university and other non-army terms were linked and I did not regard them as quite so necessary. The article is probably about right now in respect of wikilinks.
2. The Implementation of the Act subsection has a {citation needed} flag. Defects such as this, and I only found one, should have been resolved before WP:GAN. I did not see it until after the decision to award GA-class had been made; otherwise I would have put the article On Hold.

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA; and can you add the missing citation soon?Pyrotec (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That one citation flag is annoying me greatly - I put it there myself, as a "find footnote here" reminder, and I'd forgotten about it until now. I'm fairly sure it's accurate and noncontentious, I'm just not sure where on earth I got it from. I'll have another scour. Shimgray | talk | 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

...and I've found something. It's not the source I originally used, but it certainly covers it. Shimgray | talk | 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)