Talk:George Pickett/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 23:05, 21 July 2016 (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:
 * Rather than list a series of minor changes, in view of the amount of time that this article has been in the queue, I have made them myself here
 * 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:
 * All images are appropriately tagged
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I believe this article meets GA standards. However, I do have some suggestions for improving the article (below).
 * 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:
 * All images are appropriately tagged
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I believe this article meets GA standards. However, I do have some suggestions for improving the article (below).
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I believe this article meets GA standards. However, I do have some suggestions for improving the article (below).

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggestions for improvement
 * 1) Given that we already noted that his wife's account is unreliable, that the term "Perhaps there is no doubt" makes no sense, and the claim the "he was the best infantry soldier developed on either side during the Civil War" is so obvious hyperbole, consider removing this quote.
 * 2) Saying "After the firing on Fort Sumter, Virginia seceded from the Union" doesn't give the reader much information. Better to give the date Virginia succeeded.
 * , thank you for the review. I clarified the sentence regarding Virginia's secession. However, I chose to keep the McClellan quote in the article. It's a bit over the top, I know, but it helps show what those who fought alongside and against Pickett thought of him. It is especially valuable coming from McClellan, a man who was in Pickett's class at West Point, served with him for years in the U.S. Army, and directly fought against during the Civil War. I'm also not sure what that has to do with his wife, because as stated in the article, it comes from another historian. But once again, thank you for the review. Display name 99 (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)