Talk:Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article is stable.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

There are low-level grammar issues, as well as punctuation problems throughout. A good copy edit should fix this.
Anything that needs to be picked up for GAN? Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not specific to GAN, but a tighter style of writing. In particular, I feel that commas are needed after a year is mentioned, treating it as a parenthetical, which requires a comma after it. Major style guides require this, see comma. It is not a requirement but it will be picked if the article moves towards FA, so we might as well get it sorted now. -- S Masters (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article I can see moving to FA, really; it's not important enough that there's much material on it. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1980 a European Directive was issued in 1980 requiring nations..." - Is it necessary to repeat 1980?
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, do not wikify common words like negligence.
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, no. Wikipedia is also not inhabited by lawyers. Given the being "negligent" holds different meanings legally and to the layman, I thought it a good idea to link to the legal article. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, I suggest you do it on the first mention, but leave any repeats unlinked. -- S Masters (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okie-dokes, will do. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

There is overlinking. Only wikify words once, on first mention. The lead can be an exception. Please remove repeated links.
There's no requirement to only link words once that I know of. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy regarding repeat linking is at WP:REPEATLINK. Although there are exceptions, "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first", this mainly applies to FA length articles, and many GA reviewers ask for these to be removed. It also makes the article more visually appealing. -- S Masters (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I'll get on to that in a sec. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Overall, this article has met almost all the requirements for a Good Article. Unfortunately, it has some minor issues that need to be rectified. I will allow seven days for these to be addressed, before making any further decision.

Final comments: Thank you for all your hard work in making this a better article. I am now satisfied that it meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to pass it. -- S Masters (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]