Jump to content

Talk:Henry Daglish/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Picking up this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Lead:
    "the sixth premier of Western Australia" Not sourced in the article.
    " chief clerk in the WA Police Department." You haven't defined this abbreviation
  • Early life:
    Link foundry
    "an offer of £20" Consider using the {{inflation}} template
    "the WA public service" You haven't defined this abbreviation
  • Premier of Western Australia
  • Typo: "Councill" should be "Council"
    " the fourth youngest to this day" Suggest use of the {{As of}} template here
    "Governor" Link Governor of Western Australia
    "properties valued below £1,000" Consider using the {{inflation}} template
  • "Companies and Mining legislation" Should this be capitalised?
    • Source says "Companies and Mining legislation", so I decided to put the whole phrase in lowercase.

@Hawkeye7: That should be all. Steelkamp (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Looks good. Passing.