Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Francis William Reitz

Francis William Reitz

This article on a South African politician was a stub with hardly any info in it. It is now completely rewritten, with references and sources, portrait and infobox links to WikiSource etc. Currently a B-status is looked for, with GA-status or above hoped for, when the remaining section of Reitz as cultural figure is completed, and some more editing has further improved the article.Michel Doortmont (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-status has been issued by an independent reviewer.Michel Doortmont (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript review

The following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program:

For FA status, you would need to expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The lead should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
- Issue addressed in conformity with guidelines; former short lead dated from original much shorter article. Michel Doortmont (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Single years without accompanying dates, decades, and centuries should only be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
- Issue addressed: linked dates are within guidelines as specified in Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates).
~~Please consider adding {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]~~
- Issue addressed, {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} inserted.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- ~~incorrectly~~
  - Checked: incorrectly occurs once and is statement of fact and addresses issue of general knowledge, namely the fact that the South African Republic was not a fully sovereign state under the Pretoria Convention (1881) and the London Convention (1884). Michel Doortmont (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations.^[?]~~
  - Issue of weasel words seems resolved, but citation level needs upgrading. Michel Doortmont (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent, at present both American or British spelling appears to be used. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), defence (B) (American: defense), organise (B) (American: organize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), travelled (B) (American: traveled).

There were a few words in American English, which I changed to British English. As the article is about a South African historical topic a conscious choice was made for British English. Maybe a third person should go over the text again and copy-edit on this issue. Michel Doortmont (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clear the [citation needed] markers by inserting appropriate references where necessary. For GA-status, you would need further footnotes detailing from which source the material in the article is taken.
- Added citations to all factual statements and removed [citation needed] markers; issue solved, but re-review is welcome, Michel Doortmont (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Checked through User:AndyZ/Suggestions and cannot directly find anything to improve at this point. Will nominate the article for GA-status now.Michel Doortmont (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article (GA) nominee

All of the above comments have been worked on rigourously and subsequenly the article was put up for Good Article (GA) status. Please assist in making this happen! Michel Doortmont (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checked article manually and agree with nomination for GA-status; peer review was rigorous, corrections and additions were also. GA-status given. Makeshift Thackery (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]