GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bruce1ee ( talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this nomination – I see it's been in the queue for over 5 months, so I think it deserves a look at. I'll follow up here with my findings in the next couple of days. — Bruce1ee talk 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I've done a first pass through the article and a little copyediting. But before I start the review, I do have one query: Why is Elizabeth Jane Howard sometimes referred to as "Jane Howard", and other times as "Jane"? WP:SURNAME says "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only", which in this case is "Howard". I can understand Kingsley Amis being referred to as "Kingsley" and not "Amis" because his children are mentioned in the article, but I don't see any confusion with Howard's name. Howard and Kingsley were married, but from what I can see, she didn't take on his surname, or have I got it wrong? — Bruce1ee talk 14:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This is an interesting and nicely written article, but please have a look at my comments below. I don't have access to the offline sources, so I've assumed good faith. — Bruce1ee talk 14:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bruce, thanks for the feedback.
Thanks again for the review. Hope the fixes help. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Everything looks fine now – I've promoted the article. Thanks for all your hard work on it. — Bruce1ee talk 08:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
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. | No Close paraphrasing/ copyright violations found. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See above discussion regarding the naming of individuals. |
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. | |
![]() |
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). | I've assumed good faith for offline sources. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
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. | All images appear to be correctly tagged; no non-free image used. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Promoted to GA. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bruce1ee ( talk · contribs) 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this nomination – I see it's been in the queue for over 5 months, so I think it deserves a look at. I'll follow up here with my findings in the next couple of days. — Bruce1ee talk 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I've done a first pass through the article and a little copyediting. But before I start the review, I do have one query: Why is Elizabeth Jane Howard sometimes referred to as "Jane Howard", and other times as "Jane"? WP:SURNAME says "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only", which in this case is "Howard". I can understand Kingsley Amis being referred to as "Kingsley" and not "Amis" because his children are mentioned in the article, but I don't see any confusion with Howard's name. Howard and Kingsley were married, but from what I can see, she didn't take on his surname, or have I got it wrong? — Bruce1ee talk 14:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This is an interesting and nicely written article, but please have a look at my comments below. I don't have access to the offline sources, so I've assumed good faith. — Bruce1ee talk 14:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bruce, thanks for the feedback.
Thanks again for the review. Hope the fixes help. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Everything looks fine now – I've promoted the article. Thanks for all your hard work on it. — Bruce1ee talk 08:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
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. | No Close paraphrasing/ copyright violations found. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See above discussion regarding the naming of individuals. |
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. | |
![]() |
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). | I've assumed good faith for offline sources. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
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. | All images appear to be correctly tagged; no non-free image used. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Promoted to GA. |