Talk:Basil George Watson/GA1
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I will take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Many minor grammar, spelling, punctutation mistakes.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- The lead is too short, failing to give a clear overview of the entirety of the article. The layout incorporates multiple single-sentence paragraphs and short sections.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- The excessive reliance on newspaper clippings is not encouraging. I would suggest using the books in the references section instead.
- C. It contains no original research:
- Several notes contain original research. The paragraph beginning "It seems that Watson's family..." is total OR. The education section is unsourced
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Several lengthy quotes from this website means that the article fails the copyright violation guidelines.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- Most of the gallery pictures do not "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" (WP:GALLERY)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I am putting this article on hold, and giving the nominator a period of time to execute the significant changes needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
I am failing this GAR for lack of improvement. I hope you will consider actioning them in the future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
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.