Talk:E. T. Whittaker/GA2

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Claiming this one. Article is reasonably long, so this may take a while. On the other hand, it looks in good shape. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This article meets GA requirements. If you want to take it to FA, ping me for a list of additional items.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I made a series of minor changes. Revert anything you're unhappy with:
 * Added the postnominals template
 * Removed the academic postnominals per MOS:POSTNOM: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead.
 * Added some ref=none cards to suppress some warnings generated by scripts I run.
 * Removed the worlcat urls, which are covered by the oclc cards
 * More controversially, I removed the summary paragraph of "Life". It is unnecessary as there is a summary in the lead and all the details are the article, and was unsourced (although the sources could be found elsewhere in the article)
 * Fixed typos: "vigor", "ahs"
 * added some commas.
 * Fixed the Edinburgh link and added the page number. Other links look okay.
 * The claim that he received the Tyson Medal for Mathematics and Astronomy in 1895 was unsourced. Corrected the date and added a source.

Passing. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  21:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added a London Gazette link for his knighthood.
 * Aside: the fact that he was second wrangler had me wondering who was first. It was Thomas John I'Anson Bromwich.
 * Despite what the previous reviewer said, "Bibliography" is usually used for books by the subject. But meh.