Talk:Henry Daglish/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead:

  "the sixth premier of Western Australia" Not sourced in the article.

  " chief clerk in the WA Police Department." You haven't defined this abbreviation

• Early life:

  Link foundry

  "an offer of £20" Consider using the {{inflation}} template

  "the WA public service" You haven't defined this abbreviation

• Premier of Western Australia
• Typo: "Councill" should be "Council"

  " the fourth youngest to this day" Suggest use of the {{As of}} template here

  "Governor" Link Governor of Western Australia

  "properties valued below £1,000" Consider using the {{inflation}} template

• "Companies and Mining legislation" Should this be capitalised?
  • Source says "Companies and Mining legislation", so I decided to put the whole phrase in lowercase.

@Hawkeye7: That should be all. Steelkamp (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

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

   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:

   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

   copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Looks good. Passing.