Talk:Erasmus Smith/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 22:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2017 (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:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Everything looks fine on my first pass, but I'll need to take a closer look at the parameters. Shearonink (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 Oxford DDNB is subscription=based and should be marked as such.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool and everything seems fine. Shearonink (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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): {{GAList/check|yes}
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Nicely lays out the tussle over the Trust during Smith's lifetime. Clearly delineates issues over what exactly "Turkey merchant" could mean. Shearonink (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no edit wars! Shearonink (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Nicely-done...I imagine it is difficult to find portraits of people who lived in the 1600s. Shearonink (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * Nicely-done...I imagine it is difficult to find portraits of people who lived in the 1600s. Shearonink (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Thanks for taking this on, . I've been away for a couple of days. Is there any preferred style in which you would like me to respond to any queries? Some people prefer a response to points inline, others prefer en bloc at the end of the reviewer remarks. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the responses and correspondence about the Review to be on this page - maybe ping me so your changes show up in my notifications separately (as opposed to being in with the rest of my Watchlist). Whatever works for you is fine, either down here or up there, thanks for asking, I'll be able to update the criteria as they are fulfilled. Shearonink (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All the requested adjustments have been tended to. This is a well-researched nicely-illustrated article about a historical person.  I still can hardly believe that the Trust is still around in any form - over  300+  years later. Shearonink (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)