Talk:Concealed shoes/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Should have this one to you by tomorrow. I mainly focus on copyediting issues but given the size of this article I don't think there should be any serious concerns. Thanks! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 15:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Lead

 * "The archaeologist Brian Hoggard" - why not just Archaeologist Brian Howard?
 * Something called Definite article..♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not indeed. Someone recently added that I think. Eric   Corbett  14:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "which by 2012 contained 1900 reports of discoveries" - how about which as of 2012?
 * I think "by" is better here. Eric   Corbett  14:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead feels like it falls short of some important information and could benefit from a small expansion (or movement of some content from the article into the lead) in order for it to summarise the article better.
 * The lead has now been expanded by about a third. Eric   Corbett  21:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Background

 * "Almost half are from the period between 1800 and 1899." - 19th century? Almost half date from the 19th century but it's up to you if you want to change this
 * Done. Eric   Corbett  14:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Location of finds

 * "first colonized by immigrants" - colonised, assuming that this article uses British Spelling
 * Done. Eric   Corbett  14:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Explanations

 * "The archaeologist and architectural historian M. Chris Manning" - why the initial M.?
 * Because that's the name he published the cited paper under. Eric   Corbett  18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The brownie and hob, domestic fairies found in England and Scotland, could be driven off by a gift of clothing." - doesn't specify what the brownie and hob are? Folklore, faeries etc
 * They're domestic fairies, as the sentence says. Eric   Corbett  14:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "There was an Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe" - if this is a nursery rhyme, shouldn't this be italicised per WP:ITALICS?
 * No, I don't think so. Eric   Corbett  14:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

On hold
This was a good read, overall a well written article with very few concerns to point out. The only thing standing in the way of it becoming GA is the lead section (and those few minor points I made regarding prose). If the lead can be expanded slightly to include more content on concealed shoes then this should have no problem with passing the GAN. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days until those issues have been addressed. Thanks! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Thank you everyone for your vast improvements to this article, the lead has definitely been improved, the rest of the article is broad and comprehensive, the references are all in check and finally the prose is up to a GA standard. This article now meets the GA criteria, well done on all the extra work! I apologise if I was too sceptical about some things regarding the prose, it all makes sense now. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)