Talk:Thames Valley Royals proposal

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thames Valley Royals proposal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• okay - I remember this when it happened - will read and copyedit as I go and jot queries below...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Right, now where was I .....hmmm....

''it nearly went through - a tad colloquial-sounding....but I can't think of a better phrase - "it nearly came to fruition"? hmmmm

OK —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

it derailed at the last minute - " it was derailed at the last minute " (more used to seeing it in passive tense...)

OK —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably replace at least one "Maxwell" with a pronoun in para 2 of lead.

Yes —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering if we can improve the structure of the lead - currently it has para 1 = very potted summary, paras 2 & 3 are more details....but this makes the article have a three-tiered level of detail. I think maybe rearranging the lead strictly chronologically would be better - otherwise it comes across as repetitive.

Okay. I have trimmed it down and put it more chronologically; what do you think now? —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"There was fear in the faces of the older players," he said. "It was a feeling of incredulity, confusion, worry and fear." - bit laboured using "fear" twice in the one sentence....

Yes —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The residents of neither Didcot nor Wallingford elicited much interest - "The residents of neither Didcot nor Wallingford showed much interest" You elicit something in something - i.e. someone eliciting interest out of the locals...

Ok, thanks for this —Cliftonian (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - nice and tight/interesting read, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Casliber! —Cliftonian (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)