Talk:Harrie Massey/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The review will be done shortly, AFAP by me. Ṫ Ḧ the joy of the LORD my strength 15:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status – Review Criteria   		A good article is—  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

</ol>

Review

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

 * The lead requires a slight rewrite to remove the 'influential' and the next sentence could be connected with the first as a single phrase. A little more expansion in the very first paragraph will do good.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The info box must have at least two inline or full cites, specially rectifying the death and birth date.
 * The Infobox summaries the article and must not have inline cites. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think so. Galileo Galilei do not have so, neither many other GAs of similar fields. Inline cites provide better stability and at least two of them are expected in the infobox. Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 07:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:INFOBOXREF: References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material requires a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information doesn't also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Copyvio shows about 70% paraphrasing which must be reduced by a rewrite.
 * Despite the figure, the compare shows no sign of paraphrasing at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * royalcommission1851.org is dead and must be removed or replaced.
 * Replaced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Collisions of Material Particles from cam.ac.uk must be updated of access date.
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Though images are not a criterion, an image or two in the early life and career and later life sections will be appreciated.
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Death could be better explained in a new section.
 * Moved to a new section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Second paragraph of Second World War needs few more inline cites.
 * Section is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Result
The article passed the GA review to gain a Good Article status. Though I have a slight concern on the lack of cites in the info box, it does not pose a great threat for the article's gradation as GA. Some red links point towards future articles and an image of the person is appreciated in the article. Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 11:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)