Talk:William Winstanley Hull/GA1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Content deleted Content added
Extended confirmed users
5,388 edits
→‎Assessment: reply to Pbritti
Extended confirmed users
5,388 edits
promote William Winstanley Hull to good article (GANReviewTool
)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==GA Review==
==GA Review==
{{atopg
| status =
| result = Passed. <span style="color:#618A3D">[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 00:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
}}
{{Good article tools}}
{{Good article tools}}
<noinclude>{{al|{{#titleparts:William Winstanley Hull/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}<br/></noinclude><includeonly>:''This review is [[WP:transclusion|transcluded]] from [[Talk:William Winstanley Hull/GA1]]. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{al|{{#titleparts:William Winstanley Hull/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}<br/></noinclude><includeonly>:''This review is [[WP:transclusion|transcluded]] from [[Talk:William Winstanley Hull/GA1]]. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''</includeonly>
Line 45: Line 49:
:::Ok, done working through the comments! ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 00:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Ok, done working through the comments! ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 00:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Lovely! (Since you're busy this week I figured I might as well do the review today, as I'm doing the [[Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024|GAN review drive]] & have a bunch of other article reviews lined up.) I was mainly just curious about the offline sources, since they seem like the kind of thing that would be difficult to find; I've used a lot of offline sources (via local library) for some other projects. The article looks excellent now; congrats!! <span style="color:#618A3D">[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 00:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Lovely! (Since you're busy this week I figured I might as well do the review today, as I'm doing the [[Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024|GAN review drive]] & have a bunch of other article reviews lined up.) I was mainly just curious about the offline sources, since they seem like the kind of thing that would be difficult to find; I've used a lot of offline sources (via local library) for some other projects. The article looks excellent now; congrats!! <span style="color:#618A3D">[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|<span style="color:#618A3D">talk</span>]]</span> 00:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

Latest revision as of 00:20, 4 March 2024

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:

talk · contribs) 19:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]


  • Hey, @
    Sawyer-mcdonell: just a heads up that this next week (Monday 4 March—Friday 8 March) is one where I'll be working extended shifts of 9 AM to 10 PM Eastern Time (US). As such, there's a high likelihood that my responses will be delayed. I should still have opportunities to respond to any comments and I'll still have access to the sources in question, though. Thanks again for launching the review! ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No worries!
    talk 19:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Assessment

Well-written

Verifiable with no original research

  • it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
    the layout style guideline
     Passed
  • 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)
    •  Comment: no major concerns, especially as there are fewer than 10 sources. Text-source integrity with the sources I could access is good. Are the Jasper 1954 & Bradshaw 1971 sources online at all?
  • it contains no original research  Passed
  • it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism  Passed

Broad in its coverage

  • it addresses the main aspects of the topic
    •  Comment: In certain respects a high tory and ultra-protestant, Hull joined Sir Robert Inglis's committee formed in 1829 to oppose the return of Robert Peel as MP for Oxford University, and a pamphlet he wrote in 1829 opposed the admission of Roman Catholics or Jews to parliament. (from the Oxford National Biography) - I think this could be a good thing to add; it gives more context to his views on liturgy, and it's an interesting contrast with his later defense of William George Ward. I think note 3 could be moved to the body of the text.
  • it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)  Passed

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each  Passed

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute  Passed

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as

audio

@
talk 20:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Sawyer-mcdonell
:
Wow, you move fast! I know it's a short one, but I'm still impressed. Ok, to your comments:
Thanks again for the prompt review. Expect the GAN comments to produce results shortly! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done working through the comments! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely! (Since you're busy this week I figured I might as well do the review today, as I'm doing the
talk 00:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
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.