Talk:Joseph B. O'Hagan/GA1

GA Review

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)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(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.

2. 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) 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(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.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	08:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC): well written, no issues.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC): sorry for the delay, no MoS issues.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC): WP:INCITE is followed with a valid style.	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
(c) (original research)	16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC): no OR or synthesis, sources support the content.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	11:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC): Earwig's tool says yep.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

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
(b) (focused)	16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC): nothing irrelevant.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

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

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
11:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC): cursory glance at less than month-long history indicates no edit warring or content disputes.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

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
(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

Result

Result	Notes
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

• Hi Ergo Sum, thank you for your nomination, and my apologies for the delay between starting the review and finishing it, I've been a bit busy over the past few days. Please see my above feedback and ping me back here and I'll be happy to re-review the one "on hold" point. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, StraussInTheHouse. The self-published ref is not cited for the portion that is actually written by O'Hagan, but for the introductory portion written by the editor. I think that avoids the self-published issue. Ergo Sum 16:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @StraussInTheHouse: Have you had a chance to take a look at my reply? Ergo Sum 03:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi Ergo Sum, my apologies, I've had a technical issue and a been a bit busier than I anticipated. I will re-review tonight. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2021 (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.