Talk:John Dacey/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I am reviewing this article to possibly be a Good Article. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 18:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 21 December 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:
 * excessive amount of redlinks, please fix blacksmith
 * Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * The claim that Dacey died of nephritis is unsourced.
 * Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ref#8 does not support statement (Dacey anti-tillite, against Federation), Ref#9 does clearly state Dacey was an anti-billite. (Also, it's not a plural is it?)
 * Fixed the plural. It's in ref#9, the newspaper refers to him as "Mr. Dacey, anti-billite, from Sydney". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, they all work well together taken as a whole.
 * Please check all refs.
 * I had a look, but what are you referring to specifically? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My concerns have been dealt with, all is well. I hadn't had a chance to check every reference so wanted someone to take another go at them.
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * See comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats! John Dacey is now a Good Article.
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * See comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats! John Dacey is now a Good Article.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * See comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats! John Dacey is now a Good Article.