Talk:Cyrus Prudhomme David/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * Lead:
 * "read law" this isn't going to mean much to many Americans - could we link or explicate?✅ Linked reading law
 * Link for "Colonial Office"?✅
 * Early life:
 * "on November 1867" .. shouldn't this be "in November"?✅ Yes, fixed.
 * Links for "Queen's Royal College" and "Port of Spain"?✅
 * Political career:
 * "creating an official majority on the council" an majority of what/who?
 * "Prior to this, the unofficial members had constituted a majority on the council, and Chamberlain's actions weakened the already limited power of local residents." I think we need an explanation of what official and unofficial members are and how unofficial members could actually do anything useful? Ah, i see there's an explanation further on - suggest moving this explanation up to the first mention of the Legislative Council✅ I moved the details about the council's composition up from late in the article. I think that satisfies the prior issue as well.
 * "David argued that as long as Britain persists in treating the colonies as merely" pretty sure we want "David argued that as long as Britain persisted in treating the colonies as merely" here, to keep the verbs in the same tense.✅
 * Appointment:
 * THe last sentence of this section is repeated in the next section - it's unneeded in one of these places. I cut out most of the repeat information, but I left the sentence because it's the only way I can think to mention his campaigning for local government reform (short of writing the whole article on the topic, which I hope to do one of these days.
 * Indian indentureship:
 * "and in 1902 David suggested that this cost, which primarily benefited a relatively small number of large sugar planters." what did David suggest? I see the next sentence says it, but the structure of the two sentences is very awkward and needs rephrasing.✅ Rewritten and (hopefully) clarified a bit.
 * that's it, nice little article!
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the review . I think I've addressed everything you raised (hopefully without creating a whole new set of issues). Guettarda (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Those all look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much @Ealdgyth! Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indian indentureship:
 * "and in 1902 David suggested that this cost, which primarily benefited a relatively small number of large sugar planters." what did David suggest? I see the next sentence says it, but the structure of the two sentences is very awkward and needs rephrasing.✅ Rewritten and (hopefully) clarified a bit.
 * that's it, nice little article!
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the review . I think I've addressed everything you raised (hopefully without creating a whole new set of issues). Guettarda (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Those all look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much @Ealdgyth! Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)