Talk:Robert Deniston Hume/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: —S Marshall T/C 18:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

1. YWell-written:

(a) Ythe prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) Yit complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. YVerifiable with no original research:

(a) Yit contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) Yreliable 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); and

(c) Yit contains no original research.

3. YBroad in its coverage:

(a) Yit addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) Yit stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. YNeutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. YStable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. YIllustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) Ymedia are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) Ymedia are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Criterion 1a:- Two issues.

• In the infobox, the death date reads "62-63". It should unambiguously read "63".
• Reference 17 refers to a direct quotation but the quotation is ambiguous because it is missing the opening speech marks.

Nits (not GA criteria failures, but things I think it would be good to think about): There are a few instances of redundancy in the writing (e.g. "he was adopted by foster parents, the Robert Denistons," → "he was adopted by the Robert Denistons"). It's not clear to me why, in the second paragraph of "politician", "in support of" should be italicised. I do realise that the article emphasises that he's not a populist, but I found the italics slightly distracting without making the material clearer. The "early life" section overlaps with the "family, death and legacy" section, containing the same material; on first read-through, I thought he'd married Celia Bryant twice! Maybe move the first sentence of "family, death and legacy" to "early life".

Overall: A well-written, well-researched and balanced article that I look forward to promoting to GA status.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. You are right on all counts. I've changed the age to 63 and removed the end quotes from the blockquote, which shouldn't have any regular quotation marks, per WP:MOSQUOTE. I also made the other three changes you recommended. I had wondered about the wisdom of putting "in support of" in italics, and I had just not noticed the repetition of the Celia material or the redundancy in the "foster parent" sentence. Finetooth (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. I'm pleased to pass this article as a GA. I ought to remind you to review an article yourself, so I'll do so, though I'm well aware that you're a prolific reviewer and would likely have done so anyway.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 17 June 2010 (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.