GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk) 17:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Initial comments after first read-through: spelling needs to be consistently UK or US. At present it contains examples of both; inverted commas need to be Wikified – i.e. double quotes throughout. More detailed comments after second read-through. First impression is of an excellent article. Tim riley ( talk) 00:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments after second read-through:
Tim riley ( talk) 11:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your very helpful comments. I think I've now dealt with most of the above (if I haven't I am leaving off for the present, as my head is swimming). I've also added a few bits and pieces and reordered some of the content to improve the flow. Where I haven't taken action is on unlinking some of the words (except where the links are repeated). This is not just due to a fondness for 'aniline' - only that some users of WP can be not as sophisticated as we might imagine, and might find something about watercolours, organs or even Berlin useful...anyway I am now going to sleep on it....-- Smerus ( talk) 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I have now dealt with the 'Felix' issue - though there are one or two places where, as you allow, it has proved I think more helpful to leave 'Felix' for disambiguation purposes.-- Smerus ( talk) 05:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
That clears up all outstanding objections to promoting the article to GA. Tim riley ( talk) 10:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I found this an enjoyable and instructive article to review. There are, in my view, the makings of an FA with some copy editing to bring MoS compliance up to FA standards, but that is for another day. Meanwhile, it is a pleasure to affirm its GA-status.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk) 17:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Initial comments after first read-through: spelling needs to be consistently UK or US. At present it contains examples of both; inverted commas need to be Wikified – i.e. double quotes throughout. More detailed comments after second read-through. First impression is of an excellent article. Tim riley ( talk) 00:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments after second read-through:
Tim riley ( talk) 11:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your very helpful comments. I think I've now dealt with most of the above (if I haven't I am leaving off for the present, as my head is swimming). I've also added a few bits and pieces and reordered some of the content to improve the flow. Where I haven't taken action is on unlinking some of the words (except where the links are repeated). This is not just due to a fondness for 'aniline' - only that some users of WP can be not as sophisticated as we might imagine, and might find something about watercolours, organs or even Berlin useful...anyway I am now going to sleep on it....-- Smerus ( talk) 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I have now dealt with the 'Felix' issue - though there are one or two places where, as you allow, it has proved I think more helpful to leave 'Felix' for disambiguation purposes.-- Smerus ( talk) 05:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
That clears up all outstanding objections to promoting the article to GA. Tim riley ( talk) 10:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I found this an enjoyable and instructive article to review. There are, in my view, the makings of an FA with some copy editing to bring MoS compliance up to FA standards, but that is for another day. Meanwhile, it is a pleasure to affirm its GA-status.