Talk:John Pope (general)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Stevietheman (talk · contribs) 17:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not in a position to do a thorough footnote-by-footnote review, but the lead section feels long and any effort to make it more concise would be worthwhile. Also, there are no inline citations in the lead.  See WP:LEAD for what's expected for a lead section. The peer reviewer tool also turned up instances of weasel words. See WP:WORDS.  Also, as I know a Civil War historian, he warned me about Shelby Foote's works being more about narrative than about proper history, so any material that solely depends on the listed work should be cited with a secondary credible reference.  Since there's only one such visible citation, any other credible source that backs up the quote would satisfy WP:VERIFY.  If there's any other content that relies on Foote's work, that should be addressed as well.  On the positive side, I give high marks for the article's structure and overall content presentation.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To break it down, I won't oppose GA if 1) someone well-acquainted with the subject combs through the lead, makes appropriate changes (possible reduction and/or inline citations), and certifies that it meets WP:LEAD requirements; 2) a second credible reference is supplied for the quote. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 11:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Copyedited. (Thanks for reviewing this, Stevie, but note that the PR script isn't very reliable; the "weasel words" it turned up were "it has been" inside a long quotation.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I had understood this limitation, but I was going off of "a few occurrences". But if it can't name them outside of that quote, then this is certainly not an issue.  I scratched that point off my review.  Thanks!  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 19:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, thank you for your ce's from June 10. Am I supposed to see more recent edits, ?  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 19:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, early June was when I copyedited. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look for other sources and try to vary it a bit more. As for the lead, I agree that it's a bit wordy, so i'll shrink that down. Wizardman 21:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead and found a different (and better) source for the quotation that was a concern. Wizardman 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, it looks very close to GA-ready to me, except for the sentence beginning with "He achieved initial success against Brig. Gen. Sterling Price in Missouri..." -- It's on the long side and therefore a bit clumsy.  If you can break it down into two sentences the way you think it should read, we'll be ready to go in my view. Great work!  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's now split into two and cleaned up a bit as well. Wizardman  22:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This article is now GA-quality as far as I'm concerned.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 00:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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:
 * The citation review was a matter of deciding that the sources appeared reliable, and after one switch, I believe they are. Now, that doesn't mean I verified the accuracy of the references as applied to the content because I don't have ready access to these references.  But after a month and a half of review time (and as long as the references have been there), surely if anyone had a reference objection, they would have chimed in by now.  I am depending on WP:AGF for this right now, although I (and I'm sure anybody else) would not settle for this if the article is submitted to be Featured.
 * 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:
 * Wizardman made updates to my satisfaction per my original review. Also, big thanks go to Dank for his copyedits.
 * 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:
 * Wizardman made updates to my satisfaction per my original review. Also, big thanks go to Dank for his copyedits.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Wizardman made updates to my satisfaction per my original review. Also, big thanks go to Dank for his copyedits.

Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)