Talk:Statute of Anne/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 12:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to start reviewing this article in the next few days and welcome comments from other editors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The few points mentioned below have now been dealt with.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Layout and section headings are appropriate.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	It is well referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	As far as I can see, sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not that I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It deals with different aspects of the topic in a proportionate way.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It deals with different aspects of the topic in a proportionate way.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The Stationers' Company might not think so!
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and add visual interest to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.

Initial comments[edit]

In general the prose is clear and well-written. There are a few small points that I noticed however:

It would be helpful if the lead included information on why the act was called the "Statute of Anne". Readers may ask "Who is Anne?"
Done! Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the section "Act: Text", paragraph 2, there is an extraneous "libraries".
Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the same section, paragraph 3, there is a contradictory statement about the length of time for which copyright will be granted.
Where's the contradiction? Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It states "If it was published before 10 April 1710, the length of copyright was 14 years; if published before that date, 21 years."
Argh. Headdesk. Okay, fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In "Aftermath: Impact", the last sentence in paragraph 1 is ungrammatical. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How, specifically? It's nearly 6pm, so I may be being dense :). Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the sentence ending "... also undermining this provision." On further consideration, the sentence is awkward rather than ungrammatical. Perhaps it could be rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
I have now rewritten the particular sentence to which I was referring. The article passes all the GA criteria in my view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rewrite, and thanks for the review :). Ironholds (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]