Talk:John Fraser (botanist)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose style needs to be simplified; for example "expectation of recompense", "quit the mercantile counter", "resorting to seeking assistance".
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead: is too short. Please extend it to summarize the sections of the article. It would be best to avoid refs in the lead (not a show-stopper). layout: ok. weasel: ok. fiction: n/a. lists: n/a.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	no problem.
	2b. 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).	fully cited.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Family tree does feel OR-ish.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Seems well covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not sure family tree is necessary - parents and children generally sufficient. There's already a sentence on John Jr, so suggest the rest should go.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	ok, removed an adjective.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	not an issue.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images from Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes, they illustrate the article well. Have clarified a couple of captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Been a month with no progress, so closing this. Wizardman 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]