Talk:Basil George Watson/GA1

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I will take this review. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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:
 * Many minor grammar, spelling, punctutation mistakes.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead is too short, failing to give a clear overview of the entirety of the article. The layout incorporates multiple single-sentence paragraphs and short sections.
 * 1) 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * The excessive reliance on newspaper clippings is not encouraging. I would suggest using the books in the references section instead.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Several notes contain original research. The paragraph beginning "It seems that Watson's family..." is total OR. The education section is unsourced
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Several lengthy quotes from this website means that the article fails the copyright violation guidelines.
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Most of the gallery pictures do not "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" (WP:GALLERY)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am putting this article on hold, and giving the nominator a period of time to execute the significant changes needed. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Most of the gallery pictures do not "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images" (WP:GALLERY)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am putting this article on hold, and giving the nominator a period of time to execute the significant changes needed. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am putting this article on hold, and giving the nominator a period of time to execute the significant changes needed. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am failing this GAR for lack of improvement. I hope you will consider actioning them in the future. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)