Jump to content

Talk:Joseph B. O'Hagan/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: StraussInTheHouse (talk · contribs) 11:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) 08:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC): well written, no issues. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC): sorry for the delay, no MoS issues. Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC): WP:INCITE is followed with a valid style. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC): all sources which are cited are reliable, although one is self-published, however, in pre-Wikipedia times, so not that big a deal. My query is whether any of the content can be verified by another source, just to ensure that there is no question about the range of sources cited. A couple of potentially relevant examples which I can provide access to should nom be hit by the paywall are this and this.
    16:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC): re-reviewed after nom's comment. Satisfied of third-party coverage for purposes.
    Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC): no OR or synthesis, sources support the content. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) 11:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC): Earwig's tool says yep. Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC): all major aspects which are covered in the sources cited are included. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC): nothing irrelevant. Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    11:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC): first read-through shows nothing controversial with apparent due weight given to each aspect. Not a particularly well-known figure so the likelihood of such edits being subsequently introduced is slim (see stability section below). Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    11:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC): cursory glance at less than month-long history indicates no edit warring or content disputes. Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) 11:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC): infobox image correctly tagged. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) 11:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC): no image overkill, single portrait in infobox. Lacks a caption which could include the date taken but that's personal preference, its position within the infobox makes the subject clear. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC): all in all, I think it is very likely this article will be promoted, but before doing so I think it would be beneficial to reference some of the content from a non-obituary source.

Discussion

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.