Talk:Joseph Brittan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sarnold17 (talk · contribs) 19:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello and Guten Tag; I am planning to review this article, but am bracing for a hurricane here on the east coast of the USA, so may lose power and get knocked offline for a few days. Some driveby comments: the article looks like it has all it needs for GA status. With this said, I'm really picky about prose, and will have a ton of comments, and don't expect them all to be followed. I would rather have a dialogue with you about what is a better way to get a thought across in English. During a quick review I notice that many sentences are very short, whereas combining some sentences with conjunctions can improve the prose quality. Also, I notice a fair number of parenthetical expressions that can probably best be incorporated into the prose of the sentences. This will probably take me a couple days to review, and I plan to begin shortly.Sarnold17 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough review. I hope you weren't knocked around by Sandy too much. I'll work my way through your feedback and indicate what has been dealt with.  Schwede 66  17:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Some opening comments:Sarnold17 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Para 1, line 4, recommend changing "where the family arrived" to "where he and his wife arrived in February 1852 with four children."
 * recommend adding a few words to make "and gained prominence in doing so."
 * Para 1, last sentence, recommend, "and the suburb of Linwood was subsequently named after..."


 * Para 2, first sentence, change to read "The members of the Brittan family were devout Anglicans."
 * Para 2, remove parentheses around "surviving"; it reads perfectly well without the parens.


 * Para 3, he was beaten by Moorhouse when?
 * Para 3, recommend, "...and was disliked, and even feared, by some."
 * ✅ I have dealt with all these suggestions.  Schwede 66  18:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Early life

 * "Brittan was born in 1805 in Sherborne, Dorsetshire, England, into a respectable middle-class family that originated from Bristol.* Should read "originated in Bristol"


 * "He married Elizabeth Mary Brittan (née Chandler)..." should read "He married Elizabeth Mary Chandler..." because that was her name when he married her.


 * "Five of those died in infancy and a fortnight after the birth and then death of the ninth child in 1849, his wife herself died." Recommend "Five of them died in infancy, and then his wife died in 1849, two weeks after the birth and death of their last child." While fortnight is a common British term, I suggest making the language a bit more universal, since Americans don't use the term, and might have to look it up, as I did.


 * "Brittan remarried in a manner that was illegal at the time, socially unacceptable and causing a scandal—he took Elizabeth's sister Sophia as his second wife." Recommend "...remarried in a manner that was socially unacceptable and illegal at the time, causing a scandal-he took..."  Also, I can barely fathom that this would be a scandal, though I checked one of your sources and see that it was called a scandal there.  Can you confirm that his was indeed considered by other sources to be a scandal?  I can scarcely believe that this would be the case, because in some cultures it is almost mandatory for a person to marry the surviving spouse of a sibling.  Having studied genealogy for over four decades, I find this to be a VERY common practice (at least in colonial America), and it is neither incestuous, indecent, nor immoral.  I'm flabergasted that this would ever be considered scandalous.


 * "The Brittans headed for Christchurch, as Joseph's younger brother William Guise Brittan (known as Guise Brittan) had emigrated there on the Sir George Seymour in 1850." Recommend "Brittan's younger brother...had immigrated to Christchurch earlier aboard the..."  You don't need "The Brittans headed for Christchurch" which is redundant with previous sentence.  Also, you immigrate to someplace, but emigrate from someplace.


 * "Guise Brittan was married to Louisa (née Chandler), sister of Joseph Brittan's first and second wives." Recommend: "Guise Brittan had married Louisa Chandler, a sister of Joseph's wives.


 * "Also on board was some livestock by Joseph Brittan: a Devon cow, ducks, geese, pheasants, and some rabbits." Should read "...some livestock brought by Joseph Brittan, including a Devon cow..." etc.


 * "On the journey, Brittan performed the duties of the ship's surgeon." Should read "During the journey..."


 * "Brittan and the ship's chaplain produced a play, The Merchant of Venice, and Brittan's contribution was to invite women to act the female roles, which was most unusual for the times, a hot topic of conversation and caused great amusement."Should read "...unusual for the times and a hot topic of conversation causing great amusement."


 * "The Brittans were one of the few fortunate ones among the fortunate few, as a house in on Christchurch's Hereford Street had already been organised arranged for them by Guise Brittan."


 * " But like everybody else who was heading for Christchurch, they had to make their way over the Port Hills first following the steep Bridle Path, taking with them as many of their possessions as possible, which after many months of sea journey and resulting loss of fitness was a real struggle." Recommend "Like everybody else..., upon disembarking from the ship they had to make their way over the Port Hills then follow a steep path to reach the city.  They carried as many of their possessions as possible, but following months at sea, their fitness was rather poor."


 * "The remainder of their possessions was shipped by whaleboat around the coast and up the Avon River, which due to the Sumner bar was a dangerous undertaking." Sumner bar needs to be explained, since the link talks about the town, and not the bar.  I suspect it is a sand bar, or the like.


 * Mostly done, bar the maiden name. I can see where you are coming from, but the drawback of your suggested approach is that you don't know what the wife's married name is. What are your thoughts on that? I didn't know that Americans don't have "fortnights", but shall remember that from now on.  Schwede  66  02:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is there a question about his wife's married name? Before about 1980 my guess is that almost every married woman in the English speaking world took the name of her husband.  Her married name is not important, whereas her maiden name is much more important, because you mention four different Chandler girls in the article.  Usually (in my experience) when a marriage is publicised (as in a wedding invitation) only the maiden name of the woman is given.  The married name is assumed, but is not of particular importance.  What name the woman eventually goes by is up to her and not germane to the marriage.  To me it is incorrect to say that Joseph Brittan married Sophia Brittan (or whoever), regardless of what qualifiers are given afterwards.  From a genealogical perspective, we don't care what the married name of a woman is; we want to know her maiden name.  You can seek some other guidance on this, but I feel pretty strongly that only the maiden name is appropriate.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, I'll make the changes as per your suggestion.  Schwede 66  22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done.  Schwede 66  05:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Life in New Zealand

 * "He bought rural section (RS) 300, a triangular piece of land along Canal Reserve (later to be called Linwood Avenue) of 50 acre, with the northern tip of the land touching the Avon River. He leased the adjacent RS 301, He also owned land at Papanui Bush. which he later purchased. In total, the property had 110 acre." This is kind of a mess, partly due to the very clutsy references.  I find sfn references to be so much cleaner in an article (see later discussion about this).  There are too many short choppy thoughts here that need to be consolidated.  If he owned land at Papanui Bush, why did he later purchase it?


 * "...at the time a cob church." What is a cob church?


 * "On 24 February 1857, it was became the first Anglican church in Canterbury consecrated by Bishop Harper." Where is Canterbury?  It is linked later, but should be linked here instead.


 * "Brittan had varied interests and immediately upon arrival arriving in Christchurch, joined others in various activities."


 * He was into pursued horse racing, later bred horses..."


 * "The Brittans were into music and Sophia Brittan brought her piano from England. Joseph Brittan had a portable harmonium and as in the early years, Lyttelton was culturally more important than Christchurch, he joined a musical group in the port town. For performances, he walked over the Bridle Path with the instrument strapped to his back. Musical evenings were also held at the Brittan home." These four generally short sentences can be combined and reworded for clarity: "The Brittans enjoyed music, and not only did Sophia play her piano brought from England, but Joseph played a portable harmonium. He joined a musical group in the port town of Lyttleton, which was culturally more important than Christchurch, and walked there over the Bridle Path with his instrument strapped to his back."
 * ✅ I have dealt with all these suggestions. The part on land ownership didn't make sense because the sentences were out of order. I shall look into your suggestion on shortened footnotes.  Schwede 66  03:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Canterbury Standard
This is a very short section which might need to be removed and put into the intraductory material on New Zealand. It should be a single paragraph.


 * "The new newspaper was announced by advertisement in the Lyttelton Times in August 1853." Recommend: "The advertisement announcing this new paper appeared in the..."


 * "After the Lyttelton Times (published since 1851) and the short-lived Guardian and Canterbury Advertiser (published for three months in 1852), it was the third newspaper in Canterbury. The first edition was published by Brittan on 3 June 1854." Recommend: "First published on 3 June 1854, it became the third newspaper in Canterbury, following the Lyttelton Times...and the short-lived..."


 * "William Thomson and James Willis were co-owners of the Canterbury Standard. It was sold by auction to The Press, which within days stopped its publication on 23 April 1866." This doesn't fit with the earlier assertion that Brittan basically created and published the paper.  I would say that these guys became co-owners of the paper with Brittan, then end with: "The end of the paper came in 1866 when the Christchurch newspaper, The Press, bought it at auction and quickly stopped its publication."


 * I purchased a book the other day on the first 100 years of The Press and have only had a very cursory look at the list of editors and managers. And what did I see? Joseph Brittan was one of the instigators of that newspaper! I will have to have a read and see whether that is explained in a bit more detail. Ok, The Press was set up with the foremost purpose of opposing the Lyttelton Rail Tunnel project, and Brittan was strongly opposed to it, too, but to go as far as supporting a new newspaper in opposition to his own is somewhat surprising. This section might become a bit longer and the section heading may then change to 'Newspaper ownership' or some such.  Schwede  66  03:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Have a look at this section now.  Schwede 66  10:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Political career
I find that this section needs to be put in chronological order. Start in 1855 when he became a member of the provincial council, and then move to his roles as representative.


 * "Brittan was represented on the first, third and fourth Canterbury Provincial Council." I think you mean to say that Brittan represented some entity or entities during these three councils but not quite sure.  Clarification needed.  Also, what is this council?  Even though it's linked, you are introducing his political career, and need to give some explanation as to what this council is.


 * "In the first council, he represented the Town of Christchurch electorate from March 1855 to July 1857. He then represented the City of Christchurch electorate from August 1861 to September 1862. He was a member of the council's executive from May 1855 to February 1857, serving in the role of Provincial Secretary."  The word electorate appears redundant.  Isn't it sufficient to just say her represented the town of Christchurch?  Did the town become a city between 1857 and 1861?  If so, mention this so the reader doesn't wonder what happened.


 * "While James FitzGerald, the Province's first Superintendent, was attending Parliament in Auckland, Brittan deputised for him." Where does this fit in?  What time frame?


 * "Brittan's daughter's biographer (Rosamund Rolleston, his great-granddaughter) described him as "a man of ability and a polished speaker [his] biting, sarcastic manner made him both feared and disliked", and as "quarrelsome and uncompromising". In his obituary, he was described "as a speaker [who] took very high rank, possessing a force and fluency of expression, a power of lucid statement, and a readiness in debate, which with one or two exceptions have never been equalled in the Council."  I would put all of this at the end of the article under a section called "Legacy" or if not, put it at the end of this section.  It really doesn't fit here, because it does not apply to a specific time during his career; it is more of a wrapup.


 * "Brittan first stood for public office in 1855, when membership of the Provincial Council was expanded and various seats across many electorates became available. As a resident of Hereford Street, he stood in the Town of Christchurch electorate, where two positions were to be filled." What do you mean by "he stood in the town of Christchurch electorate"? This makes no sense to me.  Apparently he held some position in some political body, but I'm not sure what body.  To me the electorate is either the total sum of all voters, or is a special body of electors selected to vote on behalf of someone else.  If this is something special to New Zealand, then it should be explained.


 * "For weeks, the newspapers were full of filled with campaign news, and with candidates us derogatory language about each other, with and Brittan accused of "assiduously frequenting the public houses".


 * "Robert Heaton Rhodes put offered? a requisition to Brittan to make himself available for the by-election that would result from FitzGerald's resignation in the Lyttelton electorate Brittan replied that he could not absent himself from his private affairs as yet<.> Keep these two thoughts together, because the next clause is out of context.


 * "Parliament at that time met in Auckland, and the 1858 session lasted from 10 April to 21 August." What does this have to do with the preceding and following sentences?


 * "Instead, Crosbie Ward, the editor and proprietor of the Lyttelton Times, was the only person nominated on 28 May 1858 and was thus declared elected." This should go right after Brittan's private affairs.
 * ✅ Fixed up to this point, bar the last bullet. Now that I have explained why the 1858 session dates are stated, do you concur that the dates need to be kept together with the previous sentence?  Schwede 66  19:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "It was generally expected that Brittan would succeed FitzGerald as Superintendent, though." Expected by whom?  Generally, avoid the use of passive voice.


 * "Brittan published his political views in a long letter that appeared in the Lyttelton Times for several months."  Should read "over a period of several months."  Does this mean the same letter appeared day after day (or week after week)?


 * "William Sefton Moorhouse announced his candidacy months later, was less experienced and the worse public speaker of the two candidates." Should read "...Moorhouse announced his candidacy a few months later, but was not only less experienced than Brittan, but a less polished public speaker.  William Richmond...


 * "The idea of building a rail tunnel to Lyttelton" from where?

The next sentence needs some introduction or prefatory words, such as "Also helping Moorhouse in his victory was the support of John Ollivier who was a ..."


 * "John Ollivier's support as a skilled orator is credited with gaining Moorhouse the Superintendency at the election on 30 October 1857 and Ollivier was regarded as the 'kingmaker'. Ollivier had a reputation as 'perhaps the best after-dinner speaker'."


 * "In the end, Isaac Thomas Cookson was elected, who had earlier supported the Brittan requisition." should read "...Cookson, who had earlier supported the Brittan requisition, was elected."


 * "The election was held the next day, when and Brittan topped the polls with 140 votes, and followed by Isaac Thomas Cookson (139 votes), Frederick Thompson (114 votes) , and Richard Westenra (100 votes) ,  In May 1862, Brittan again topped the poll (with 160 votes), Isaac Thomas Cookson and Richard Westenra were being re-elected, Samuel Bealey was also being elected and Hugh Bennetts, James George Hawkes, and Frederick Thompson were defeated.


 * "Declining health made this position untenable for him, and he resigned after nine months He was succeeded by Charles Christopher Bowen.
 * ✅ All items have been dealt with.  Schwede 66  18:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Family
I'd recommend an opening sentence to the effect of "Brittan had four children who survived childhood, all with his first wife"


 * "The eldest son, Joe, appears to have been of a simple mind, He was never tasked with important roles<,> and later lived as a recluse, regarded as a burden to the family."


 * "It is believed that Mary was first educated privately at her aunt's place, together with her nieces." Regarded by whom?  Generally, avoid passive voice.  It would be OK to say "Mary was likely first educated with her nieces at the home of her aunt."


 * "Sophia Brittan was often ill, and health was a dominant issue in her life. Joseph Brittan also had his problems, suffering from frequent headaches and gout, and together with financial trouble, he was often irritable and impatient." This would be better elsewhere, and would be a good lead-in to Brittan's death.  You could make a new section "Death and legacy" and include this, include his death, and include the opinions of others about him.  Or, you could move this, followed by his death, to the end of the previous section, or all to the end of this section.


 * "William Rolleston, at the time Provincial Secretary, proposed to Mary Brittan in early 1865. He was 34 at the time, and she was 19. Both Joseph and Sophia Brittan were opposed to a marriage, which is surprising, given that Rolleston was intelligent, well educated, successful, and if anything, of higher social standing. They thought him too old for their daughter, her too young to marry.


 * Some sentence is needed to say that the wedding was allowed to transpire after all, or that Joseph and Sophia acquiesced to the union.


 * " But  Rolleston was offered and accepted the role of Under Secretary for Native Affairs, which required moving to Wellington. Hence, the wedding went ahead on 24 May 1865 at Avonside Trinity Church, before the newly-weds moved to the capital.


 * "Joseph Brittan's health declined during 1867. Of distress  for the family were the financial affairs, with various debts that only Joseph knew about.


 * "He is buried at Holy Trinity Avonside. Arthur Brittan is in the next grave. Sophia Brittan died in August 1877 and is in a grave near her husband's. His eldest son Joseph died in 1924 and is listed on his grave stone."  Recommend "He was buried at Holy Trinity Avonside next to his son Arthur, and when Sophia died in August 1877 she was buried near her husband.  Brittan's oldest son Joseph died in 1924, and though he doesn't have a marker, an inscription for him was placed on his father's marker."


 * ✅ I've dealt with all these suggestions. I haven't created a new section 'Death and legacy' as I feel that it would be too short; there isn't too much to write there. That said, I should probably add that Linwood House was a registered heritage building, and it was recently demolished. Feel free to discuss your suggested new section further, though. The word 'marker' must be American English, as I have never heard of it before in this context.  Schwede 66  19:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I still need to check images and references.

Images
The licensing appears to be OK with all the images. Apparently New Zealand has a 50-year copyright policy.

Image captions

 * The image caption of the newspaper building says 1861, but when I looked at the library site, it says 1900. The latter seems more reasonable.  Can you confirm?
 * Nutshell.png Nutshell That discrepancy is explained by the 'description' on the image page.  Schwede 66  03:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The same caption reads "in Hereford Street" but common English usage would be "on Hereford Street." On second thought, this may be an Americanism.  I checked one of your websites and it clearly reads "in such and such street."  Is this British usage, New Zealand usage, or do you have any idea?  Anyway, please don't change if this is common usage in your part of the world.
 * I'm not sure, to be honest. I think that you've noticed that English isn't my first language. "In Hereford Street" sounds or feels slightly better to me than "on Hereford Street", but I wouldn't put any money on it. I'll invite a Kiwi editor to comment.  Schwede 66  03:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a native New Zealander, but Schwede66 asked me to comment on this, so I consulted one. She thinks either would be acceptable but leans more towards "on". We tried Googling "in Karangahape Road" vs "on Karangahape Road" and got plenty of relevant hits for both terms, but more for "in" (we chose K'Rd because all the hits would be from NZ). The deciding factor for me would be that to say "in Hereford Street in 1861" is repeating the "in", and "on Hereford Street in 1861" flows better.- gadfium 05:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input.Sarnold17 (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changed to "on Hereford Street".  Schwede 66  06:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Image placement
Here are two quotes out of the Manual of Style:
 * Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading), not immediately above the section heading.
 * Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar


 * For the first reason above, I would move the photo of the newspaper office into the section on newspapers, leaving it on the right. I would then move the caricature image somewhere in the middle of the politics section, and keep it on the left.  It really doesn't matter where this image goes.  Just because he's holding a newspaper doesn't mean it has to go in that section, where as the old building photo should definitely go in the newspaper section.


 * For the second reason above, I would move the image of Sophia elsewhere, and the ideal place would be under family. Then where should the tombstone photo go?   I've suggested that a new section entitled death and legacy could be created.  This would be the best place for the tombstone photo.  At any rate, the tombstone photo should be where his death and burial are discussed.


 * ✅ I have to admit that I hadn't come across the sandwiching issue in the MOS before, and I'm surprised that this even applies to images and infoboxes. I have shifted the photo of his wife to the family section. Even if we introduced a new heading, the tombstone photo would still overspill the end of the last section, and that looks worse to me than the placement opposite the infobox. And I'm using a small laptop screen; it would look worse still on a larger screen. Would it be acceptable to have the last two image adjacent to one another (like a mini-gallery)?  Schwede 66  20:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think all of your pictures are totally appropriate to the article, so don't recommend dropping any of them. In that case, there are times you just can't make everything fit.  I've moved them so they are staggered, and even though there are five lines of text that are sandwiched, I think it looks much better than having one of the images slop over into another section.  Are you OK with the modified placement?  If you are, it's certainly OK by me.Sarnold17 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me and is certainly better than the 'overhang'. Just remember that what you see as fives lines of text that are sandwiched, may well be many more lines on a larger screen.  Schwede  66  22:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Final comments

 * The section on Brittan's political life is long, and it's tough for me to see the organisation. If you can find a way to break it in two, that might help.  Some clear arrangement would assist the reader.
 * It is now in chronological order and as such, it should make a lot more sense and should be less confusing. I cannot think of any sensible way of breaking this into sub-sections. What I intend to do, though, is to create a template for Provincial Councils that is equivalent to NZ parlbox, and that should give a neat overview when he was actually a member. Any thoughts?  Schwede 66  20:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Overall, this is a very well researched article, and should be promoted. I will be happy to work with you on all the prose comments.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been a lot of work for both of us. I really appreciate the effort that you have put into this. The article is much better for it, and I have learned quite a few things that will help me improve other articles accordingly.  Schwede 66  20:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments, 6 November
I've reworded some of the newspaper section, put it into two paragraphs, put it into chronological order, and moved the images per my earlier comments. If I've overstepped my bounds, feel free to fix as necessary. One thing needed is some explanation of what The Press is. Even though it's linked, this is not sufficient, as readers of a printed version will not have that option. Some introductory material about The Press is needed to let the reader know that this is a Christchurch newspaper, and that it is somehow important to Brittan or somehow related to Brittan's paper. The Press is mentioned as if we've known about it all along, but I think this is the first mention of it in the article. Correct me if I've erred. Oh, and another note: the caption to the newspaper office photo (1861) says "former" office, but in 1861 it was the current and in-use office of the newpaper.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made a change to the above to fix the issue; let me know if it is factually correct.Sarnold17 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your fixes and suggestions. I've further expanded the section on newspaper proprietorship, and have fixed the caption. I'm beginning to wonder whether Mary Rolleston's biographer has it right that Brittan was proprietor of the Canterbury Standard until that paper's sale by auction. He had much more to do with The Press than ownership of a competing newspaper would allow, I would have thought. It also says in The Press centennial history book the following: "Joseph Brittan, a practised writer who had been the first editor, and for some time proprietor, of the Canterbury Standard". I'll go back to that biography at some point and give it another read. For now, though, I think I'll leave it and move onto the politics section.  Schwede 66  18:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Final comments, 11 November
I've wrapped things up to my satisfaction by making many small edits, combining a few sentences and paragraphs, moving a legacy paragraph into another section, moving Sophia's image again, removing accessdates from offline references that don't have a url, and providing two web references for the New Zealand Encyclopedia. You need to now link these new web sources to the material in the article, and then delete the references under bibliography. I'm very pleased with the outcome, and with the tremendous amount of work you've done to do all the research, make all the edits, and re-align all the references. It's a very fine article. You may have a few questions that I did not answer, so feel free to ask them again. Nice work!Sarnold17 (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with the Encyclopaedia refs, but have chosen to give them a 'heading'. Please let me know whether that's not the way to do it. I've added Linwood House to the legacy section. Yes, I'm also very pleased with the outcome; a huge thank you for your tremendous effort.  Schwede 66  18:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the refs are fine. I forgot to mention about the Linwood house being demolished, so it's good you put that in the article.  And your welcome.  I look at this as one of those nice collaborative efforts.  Best wishes in your future research; I noticed your DYK on the main page yesterday.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination recap
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * see above comments
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * I don't note any problems here
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Well-referenced throughout
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * No apparent problems here
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The subject is thoroughly covered
 * B. Focused:
 * Yes; I don't notice any tangents or unnecessary material
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No problems noted here
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No problems here
 * 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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: