Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 GA Review  
7 comments  













Talk:John Dacey/GA1




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

< Talk:John Dacey

GA Review

[edit]

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

  1. 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 (talkcontribslogs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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 (talkcontribslogs) 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 (talkcontribslogs) 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 (talkcontribslogs) 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:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    @Shearonink: See comments above. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Congrats! John Dacey is now a Good Article.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Dacey/GA1&oldid=756190361"





This page was last edited on 22 December 2016, at 16:07 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki