Talk:Martin Gilliat/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I am reviewing this article to be a Good Article. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 23:31, 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:
 * 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:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Copyright violation from obituary at independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-ltcol-sir-martin-gilliat-1489032.html "Like her, he took...treated them all alike."  I will not proceed with Review until this issue is fixed. Issue fixed, see note to MagikCow below.
 * 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:
 * No images, don't know if any CC-by-SA license-types are available, I do think the article would benefit from one if possible.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * (As above)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Good job, well-written - lays out the facts of the man's life and lets them speak for themselves without resorting to peacock words, etc. I knew nothing about Gilliat before I started this Review and, just now, reading over the article again, it actually brought me to tears.  I think Gilliat exemplified the saying "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."
 * 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:
 * No images, don't know if any CC-by-SA license-types are available, I do think the article would benefit from one if possible.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * (As above)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Good job, well-written - lays out the facts of the man's life and lets them speak for themselves without resorting to peacock words, etc. I knew nothing about Gilliat before I started this Review and, just now, reading over the article again, it actually brought me to tears.  I think Gilliat exemplified the saying "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."
 * Good job, well-written - lays out the facts of the man's life and lets them speak for themselves without resorting to peacock words, etc. I knew nothing about Gilliat before I started this Review and, just now, reading over the article again, it actually brought me to tears.  I think Gilliat exemplified the saying "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."

Uninvolved comment: I would like to add my thoughts on your assertation of a CopyVio. This allegation is regarding a picece of text that is specifically attributed and sourced to the Independant Article. The atricle states " his obituary in The Independent credited him with helping her carve out a new role for herself and described his attitude: " with an indented piece of text. This shows that it is a quotation, which is followed by a WP:INLINE citation giving the attribution. I would urge you to read WP:INTEXT to see more and how this is allowed. Bearing this in mind, I feel that user:Shearonink should now continue with the review. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to for pointing out my error on that.  I am so hep on attributing sources etc that I missed the indenting. Shearonink (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries; Copyvios are such an important issue that it is always best to point them out if in any doubt! TheMagikCow (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)