Talk:Laura Secord/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do this review. I'll start with a close readthrough in the next week, noting any initial issues that I see, and then start the checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this article--looking forward to working with you, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

First readthrough

My first impression is that this is a strong article and shouldn't have much trouble passing. (It's an interesting bit of a history, too; as an American, we don't get taught Laura Secord in school. =))

(As a Canadian, I thought Laura Secord was "the lady who made the chocolates" until just a couple of years ago =)) Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• "St. Davids" -- is it correct to not have an aposotrophe in this? I notice that these have been template-protected from AWB, so I'm assuming that's the case.

  I've done a little more internet research. The usage in the sources is divided, and it appears that there are actually two places in Ontario called St Davids or St David's. This site claims that the St David's in Niagara is the one with the apostrophe, although I doubt "WikiFieldTrip" can be accepted as a reliable source. Leavy 2012, my main source, uses "St Davids" with no apostrophe throughout, and so do piles of historical websites. Niagara-on-the-Lake's official site, according to a search there, uses "St. Davids" exclusively for all addresses, whereas a search there for "St. David's" only turns up a business called "St. David's Hydroponics". I'm pretty sure WikiFieldTrip is incorrect, which would mean the redirects St. Davids, Ontario and St David's, Ontario are also incorrect. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  The plural and not possessive form is correct (as it is for nearby St. Catharines).  Natty10000 | Natter  14:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• " Pierre Berton noted that she was never entirely clear on how she learned of the impending attack." Perhaps say something like "she never stated clearly"; the current phrasing could be read as saying that Secord herself didn't know how she learned of the attack.

  Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• " in The Story of Laura Secord Revisited" --this phrasing makes it ambiguous whether this is Ingram's book in which he makes conclusions, or whether this is the book he feels went too far.

  Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't an issue for this review, but you might consider adding bullet points for the bibliography list; my personal feeling is that it makes it easier to read, and I'm not used to seeing reference lists formatted without them on Wikipedia.

  I won't make a fuss if enough people object to this, but according to Template:Refbegin#Option 3: Hanging indentation, this is the style used by APA, MLA, and Chicago. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like Little Miss Khazar may be waking up upstairs, but if she gives me a few more minutes, I'll start the checklist now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I've got a pack of little attention-grabbers of my own who don't seem to appreciate the important contributions I'm making to the world's pool of knowledge. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd think as a six-month-old Little Miss K would have gotten the importance by now, but I guess it's going to take at least a year. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Prose is excellent, and spotchecks show no signs of copyright issues.
	1b. 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:
	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).
	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.	Images are tagged with status and rationales.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are well chosen.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--fine work.