Talk:Alexander Grant (British Army officer)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 10:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hi. A good looking article. This shouldn't be too much trouble. Some issues below from a quick skim. I'll let you have a look at them and I hope to be back to go through the article in detail in a day or two.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Well written. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): Well referenced to a good set of RSs. c (OR):  There is no evidence of OR. d (copyvio and plagiarism): Earwig shows 7%.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: There is no evidence of bias and the article is presented with a NPOV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.: Very stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): A useful location map. Minimal, but there seem to be no free use images available. b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: A fine short article. Well referenced and well written. Good coverage of the topic. A lot of work has clearly gone in and Good Article status is well merited. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): A useful location map. Minimal, but there seem to be no free use images available. b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: A fine short article. Well referenced and well written. Good coverage of the topic. A lot of work has clearly gone in and Good Article status is well merited. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: A fine short article. Well referenced and well written. Good coverage of the topic. A lot of work has clearly gone in and Good Article status is well merited. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It could do with an image. (Or two.) If only a map showing where the various places are.
 * IMO the lead is too short and does not adequately summarise the article. Eg, which countries are the various places referenced in?
 * Earwig throws up several possible copyvios. Could you rephrase the offending bits.


 * Hello and thanks for having a look at this. I've expanded the lead, adding more detail and clarification. I've found a map of the Gambia that includes both Bathurst (Banjul) and Georgetown, and included it in the article. A period map doesn't exist, although that is something that I can look into in the long-run, possibly by communicating with WikiProject Maps. I've also altered all the offending sections of text, and reworded them so that they no longer copyright violations. Jeffrolland (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Skimming the diffs they look fine. The map seems ok to provide the minimum for me to sign off on the image issue. Would File:Gambia in its region.svg be of any use? I am assessing a large GAN for someone else at the moment, but yors is next in the queue. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Very little to do. See below. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "probably more from a strategic view than a sanitary one". I know that you cite the sentence, but could you put a reference immediately after the quote as well.
 * "suffered hardship and danger without murmuring". And again.
 * "enough excitement to satisfy the most energetic soldiers seeking a show"
 * I have copy edited. Let me know if there is anything you don't like.
 * You need to either explain "without purchase" or delete it.


 * Thanks for having a proper look at it. The copy editing all looks fine to me. I've cited the first and third quote, and removed the second, as I can't find the source for it anymore. If I find it again I will add it back in and cite it properly. I have also explained without purchase in the article. If there's anything else let me know. Jeffrolland (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)