Talk:Joseph Merrick/GA1

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

Reviewer:  SilkTork  *YES! 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and this appears to be a clean, tidy, well presented, well written and comprehensive article. I'll take a closer look and give some initial comments within the next few days.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Reading through I've come upon one slight quibble: the article says, "written by someone close to the Merrick family" while the source says, "based on a knowledge of the Merrick family circumstances" - which is a minor difference in terminology. Nothing significant that is going to hold up this GA, but I wondered if the wording in the article should reflect more closely what the source says without infringing on copyright.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A very good point, thanks for spotting that. I've moved the bit about the Chronicle article into the notes section, and as I was having trouble paraphrasing the source, I've quoted what they said. Let me know what you think.-- Beloved Freak  09:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The sourcing of File:Joseph Merrick skeleton.jpg is not very clear. It would be useful to know who took the photograph.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I put in a link. It seems it is a stock photo of the museum.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Listed
This is a very well written article. The prose is clear, readable and attractive throughout, holding the interest, and presenting the information in a clear manner. The organisation of the material is well done, the lead standing alone, and the main body expanding on the lead in a logical manner. The article meets all the requirements of the GA criteria quite easily.

The article is well illustrated, though there may be some extra thought given to the presentation of the images, especially with the quote boxes. The main ways of presenting some material is either alternating right, left, or all down the right. Currently there is a bit of a mix.

Though relying mainly on one source, I feel the article does make use of other available sources where appropriate, and the main source does appear to be the most authoritative on the subject.

The article is broad and comprehensive, though - for future development - perhaps more space could be given to the critical and popular response to the dramatic works on Merrick, and - if such material is available - how these works made Merrick more known. I suspect most people would only have become aware of Merrick through either the plays or the film.

This is a very good article. Informative, accessible and enjoyable.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)