Talk:A Christmas Carol/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 15:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• "although the novel was his favourite work, sales had been disappointing and he faced financial difficulties" and "as well as several short stories, novellas and other works" — Sources?

• Now added - they were the ones I added for the footnotes and forgot to add to the main text too. - The Bounder (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

...Rest tomorrow. Finished until and including the "Background" section. Very interesting read.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you: looking forward to the rest. All the beat, The Bounder (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Here they are:

• Wikilink "Gloucester Old Bank"
• "Scrooge's views on the poor are a reflection of those of the demographer and political economist Thomas Malthus" — According to who? Do specify that.
• "Douglas-Fairhurst sees that the minor character Gabriel Grub from The Pickwick Papers was also worked into Scrooge" — "worked into" sounds a bit informal. Some other alternative perhaps?
• For note 8, just specifying the authors should do.
• For note 9, say who Chesterton is.
• "They argue" — Does Jordan specifically mention who?
• Wikilink "altruism" for those who may not be familiar with the word.
• The National Portrait Gallery reference is dead. Fix it.

That's about it from me. Great work on this, Bounder.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you again, Ssven2. All these are now done. The NPG link has not been archived and the information is no longer on the NPG site, so I've removed it. The sentence is supported by the remaining two references. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

@The Bounder: Congratulations.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)