Talk:Joseph Terry

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Terry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mackensen (talk · contribs) 00:56, 18 January 2016 (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.	I did a copyediting pass but it's fine.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Refactored the reference area to comply with MOS:LAYOUT
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.	I tagged several ambiguities which need to be addressed, but otherwise this is solid
	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).	Offline sources accepted in good faith. Several books have invalid ISBNs and may have other incorrect details: Confectionery in Yorkshire Through Time, York Industries Through Time, and Birth of a Chocolate City: Life in Georgian York Verified ISBNs. Odd that WorldCat doesn't know about them.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Offline sources accepted in good faith. I'm familiar with the period, though not Terry nor Yorkshire, and the article jibes with what I know of it.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Offline sources accepted in good faith.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers family, business, and political life.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	All the digressions are justifiable
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The contemporary sources are laudatory (which was the style of the time), but in the absence of contrary sources that's fine
	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 the images are fine, but I have a question about File:Terry-UpdatedArms.png. What were the previous issues, and how were they addressed?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Please consider adding alt text for the images
	7. Overall assessment.	All concerns addressed. Passing.

Hello Curlymanjaro (talk · contribs), thanks for your work on this article. I hope to have comments for you shortly. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Initial review complete. There are just a few minor issues to address, and we'll be good to go. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Addressing concerns

2a. I've rectified any lack of clarity as indicated by the tags.

2b. I believe the ISBN numbers for the aforementioned books are in line with the Google Books service, correct me if I'm wrong.

6a. I made a previous version of these arms that was removed due to the lack of evidence for free use. I therefore stated the origin of each element of the image this time around.

• Thanks for the clarification on the arms. Regarding 2a, is the location for new factory built in 1886 unknown? As for the ISBN numbers, they don't resolve in any of the ISBN lookup services and I would have expected them to. Without knowing which Google Books you looked at, as they aren't linked, and I can't speak to what you saw. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your speedy comeback. My mistake on the count of 2a, just a factual omission, I've since dealt with that inaccuracy. Furthermore, I've altered the concerned ISBNs for your inspection. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I would also like to add that I've added an invaluable Oxford DNB source to cut down on written sources for a short article such as this. I hope I have your blessing in reducing the font size of said references; being so many of them, I'm merely trying to reduce their visual prominence. Curlymanjaro (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
      • That's all fine by me--good work. I'm happy to pass this review. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Terry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925105929/http://www.yorkcricketclub.co.uk/the-club/history to http://www.yorkcricketclub.co.uk/the-club/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)