Talk:Empire Tract/GA1

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 00:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Dibsing. Per my usual, I will get around to it within the week. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hahahaaaaa okay I definitely didn't let this slip off the visible part of my watchlist and then out of my brain entirely.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * ✅ I think the article has enough content that a two-sentence lead is insufficient for a GA. Even 3 or 4 would be good.
 * The initial bit of the history section is a bit confusing. From the source cited, it looks like Empire Navigation was responsible for planting on the island in both 1912 and 1913, so to me it would make more sense to mention it by name in the first short paragraph, rather than waiting for paragraph 2. (Also feels like the second sentence about the company should be in para 1, leaving para 2 to start with "In a 1923 report".)
 * Paragraph split is fixed, but the other part isn't sorted. From the newspaper article cited, it appears that Empire Navigation planted in 1912, so should be identified in that sentence.
 * ✅ In para 4, the quote about "adverse conditions" needs a cite following.
 * ✅ I also think the paragraph might warrant splitting at "Nearly ten years later", but that's outside the GA criteria and if you disagree I won't fuss. Actually, the whole second half of the paragraph feels confusing to me chronologically. We've got a ferry operating in 1926, then a bridge proposal, then 10 years later a bridge, then next sentence we're back to proposing a ferry in 1926. I think it might be better to split them up topically (one para for the ferry, one about the bridge), but at the very least it needs some rearranging. The rest from here is good.
 * 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):
 * Knowing the history of your work on these lil islands, I'm going to take it as a given that you've used every available source.
 * 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I let it slip out my brain entirely too. I'll be back. jp×g 00:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops!... I Did It Again. But with this edit, this page will be fresh in my contribs so I see it tomorrow morning. jp×g 13:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable, we'll definitely be docking your next paycheck. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * sir plz &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ladies and gentlemen... he does it....... for free. jp×g 23:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made some modifications based on what you've said above. Take a look :) jp×g 00:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mostly good, just the one thing I noted above (either to be changed or let me know that I'm wrong) and then we're set. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How's it look now? jp×g 02:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perfect, passing now. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)