Talk:Henry Baylis/GA1

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

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 23:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll happily take the time to give this a comprehensive review. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Spell out Baylis Street in the lead.
 * Done
 * "née Bartels" should be in parentheses (additionally, omit it from the infobox). Same with "née Murray" later.
 * Done
 * Based on the first body sentence, he had siblings, so it might be worth mentioning how many.
 * Added the number of children that travelled to Australia with parents
 * After gold was discovered in the Mudgee district in 1851, Baylis tried his luck as a gold prospector. Do you have any information about what happened or what caused him to stop?
 * Can't find any information on why he stopped gold prospecting
 * The main road in Wagga Wagga, has been named Baylis Street, after Henry Baylis. This line should be moved into the above paragraph rather than kept separate, and maybe reworded for better flow.
 * Moved to end of previous paragraph
 * As the police magistrate in the area, Baylis made monthly visits to the settlements of Urana and Narrandera, to hold court sessions. That last comma can probably go.
 * Done
 * these two men were later identified as bushrangers, Dan Morgan and his associate "Flash Clarke".
 * Unsure what you're trying to say here
 * That was a mistake. The quoted part is fine the way it is.
 * I suppose this article technically does the opposite, but it's probably worth bringing up WP:SURVIVEDBY.
 * Removed the sentence about his surviving children

All in all, there are no egregious errors, and the article is accurate and sufficiently paraphrased. I will put it on hold. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

And here's the full report, since I neglected to add it at first:


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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):
 * 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I forgot to mention it up top, but while the images are suitable, the first one is tagged rather questionably, and also is missing a caption.
 * Added a caption to the first image
 * Could you add another tag, like with the second one? It's obviously old enough, but I don't think it's tagged sufficiently.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I forgot to mention it up top, but while the images are suitable, the first one is tagged rather questionably, and also is missing a caption.
 * Added a caption to the first image
 * Could you add another tag, like with the second one? It's obviously old enough, but I don't think it's tagged sufficiently.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comment - An anonymous username, not my real name it's possible you have checked all the criteria in this review but it's not possible to see that from the above, which looks like just a prose review. It might be worth using a template from Good_article_nominations/templates as a work guide. To take one example which is a pass/fail issue, it's not clear you have checked that the images are tagged correctly and are appropriate with suitable captions. Mujinga (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for calling me out. I added one above. I did originally review the full article (not just prose), but I didn't notice any issues with anything else at first. I looked again since you mentioned it and there may in fact be some problems. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

, can you add a tag for the image's source country? Then I'll be able to pass it. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Added the source country for the image. Knightmare 3112 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perfect, I'm passing it now. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)