Talk:Purton Hulks/GA1

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 Review

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

Reviewer: Jackdude101 (talk · contribs) 21:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: no cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 21:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Sticks to the well-sourced facts.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Besides minor things like alphabetizing the Bibliography section and the category links at the bottom, everything in the External links section, except for the "Friend of Purton" link, should be removed. The BBC link could be kept if it were used as a reference in the article, but the YouTube links definitely need to go. YouTube links and Wikipedia articles go together link vampires and garlic. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography & Cats now A->Z. YouTube links removed.— Rod ^talk 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

1. 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:

   Several of the rows in the table have no references in them. However, a quick and easy solution for this is to add one single reference next to the title of the table using this link: [1]. Also, you don't need that "List of vessels" sub-header above the table, as it's redundant. The Jordan and Huxley references (Nos. 82 and 83) need page numbers, as well. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added the general ref as suggested & removed the sub head. I don't have hard copies of either of the books (although an ebook of Huxley is available). I will request them from the library to enable me to add page numbers, however this may take mnore than 7 days and I am going to awy for the next 10 days on a boat with no internet connection - so I will not be able to resolve these within the 7 days - can you give an extension?— Rod ^talk 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rodw: I found a quick and easy solution. In the Friends of Purton reference (No. 82), it more-or-less covers the info in the one sentence referenced by the Huxley and Jordan books. I would suggest adding that reference to that sentence and remove the Huxley and Jordan references, and their entries in the Bibliography section, entirely. Those two books do not reference anything else in the article, so this will not cause any problems. It looks like the Friends of Purton info is slightly different, so the sentence in the article should be changed accordingly, as well. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 19:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've taken your advice & tweaked text removing Huxley and Jordan. Once I get the books I will see if they have anything additional which is useful.— Rod ^talk 19:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

1. C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. 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):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Rodw: Once the concerns above are addressed, this article will be set for passing its GA review. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review complete. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 20:16, 10 October 2017 (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.