Talk:Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Initial review[edit]
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[edit]
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.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
The article was interesting, comprehensive and wide ranging.
"Niggles" / Areas of improvement[edit]
- 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.
- 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)