J u m p t o c o n t e n t
M a i n m e n u
M a i n m e n u
N a v i g a t i o n
● M a i n p a g e
● C o n t e n t s
● C u r r e n t e v e n t s
● R a n d o m a r t i c l e
● A b o u t W i k i p e d i a
● C o n t a c t u s
● D o n a t e
C o n t r i b u t e
● H e l p
● L e a r n t o e d i t
● C o m m u n i t y p o r t a l
● R e c e n t c h a n g e s
● U p l o a d f i l e
S e a r c h
Search
A p p e a r a n c e
● C r e a t e a c c o u n t
● L o g i n
P e r s o n a l t o o l s
● C r e a t e a c c o u n t
● L o g i n
P a g e s f o r l o g g e d o u t e d i t o r s l e a r n m o r e
● C o n t r i b u t i o n s
● T a l k
( T o p )
1
G A R e v i e w
T o g g l e t h e t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s
T a l k : J o h n D a c e y / G A 1
A d d l a n g u a g e s
P a g e c o n t e n t s n o t s u p p o r t e d i n o t h e r l a n g u a g e s .
● A r t i c l e
● T a l k
E n g l i s h
● R e a d
● E d i t
● A d d t o p i c
● V i e w h i s t o r y
T o o l s
T o o l s
A c t i o n s
● R e a d
● E d i t
● A d d t o p i c
● V i e w h i s t o r y
G e n e r a l
● W h a t l i n k s h e r e
● R e l a t e d c h a n g e s
● U p l o a d f i l e
● S p e c i a l p a g e s
● P e r m a n e n t l i n k
● P a g e i n f o r m a t i o n
● G e t s h o r t e n e d U R L
● D o w n l o a d Q R c o d e
P r i n t / e x p o r t
● D o w n l o a d a s P D F
● P r i n t a b l e v e r s i o n
A p p e a r a n c e
F r o m W i k i p e d i a , t h e f r e e e n c y c l o p e d i a
< T a l k : J o h n D a c e y
Article (edit | visual edit | history ) · Article talk (edit | history ) · Watch
I am reviewing this article to possibly be a Good Article.
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs ) 18:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC) [ reply ]
Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk ) 18:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC) [ reply ]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Is it well written ?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections , layout , words to watch , fiction , and list incorporation :
excessive amount of redlinks, please fix blacksmith
Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs ) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC) [ reply ]
Is it verifiable with no original research ?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline :
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources , including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged , and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines :
C. It contains no original research :
The claim that Dacey died of nephritis is unsourced.
Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs ) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC) [ reply ]
Ref#8 does not support statement (Dacey anti-tillite, against Federation), Ref#9 does clearly state Dacey was an anti-billite. (Also, it's not a plural is it?)
Fixed the plural. It's in ref#9, the newspaper refers to him as "Mr. Dacey, anti-billite, from Sydney". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs ) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC) [ reply ]
Thanks. Yes, they all work well together taken as a whole.
Please check all refs.
I had a look, but what are you referring to specifically? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs ) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC) [ reply ]
My concerns have been dealt with, all is well. I hadn't had a chance to check every reference so wanted someone to take another go at them.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism :
Is it broad in its coverage ?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style ):
Is it neutral ?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable ?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images ?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status , and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content :
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions :
Overall :
Pass or Fail:
@Shearonink : See comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs ) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC) [ reply ]
Congrats! John Dacey is now a Good Article.
R e t r i e v e d f r o m " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Dacey/GA1&oldid=756190361 "
● T h i s p a g e w a s l a s t e d i t e d o n 2 2 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 , a t 1 6 : 0 7 ( U T C ) .
● T e x t i s a v a i l a b l e u n d e r t h e C r e a t i v e C o m m o n s A t t r i b u t i o n - S h a r e A l i k e L i c e n s e 4 . 0 ;
a d d i t i o n a l t e r m s m a y a p p l y . B y u s i n g t h i s s i t e , y o u a g r e e t o t h e T e r m s o f U s e a n d P r i v a c y P o l i c y . W i k i p e d i a ® i s a r e g i s t e r e d t r a d e m a r k o f t h e W i k i m e d i a F o u n d a t i o n , I n c . , a n o n - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n .
● P r i v a c y p o l i c y
● A b o u t W i k i p e d i a
● D i s c l a i m e r s
● C o n t a c t W i k i p e d i a
● C o d e o f C o n d u c t
● D e v e l o p e r s
● S t a t i s t i c s
● C o o k i e s t a t e m e n t
● M o b i l e v i e w