Talk:Peter Penfold/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shudde (talk · contribs) 01:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I'll be reviewing this article. Bear with me as I add comments, I usually do this piece by piece rather than in one large chunk. I'll try to have the review complete relatively promptly. - Shudde  talk 01:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, and apologies for my tardiness in responding. I've dealt with many of the issues; it may take me a few days to deal with the remainder. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problems. I'm going to get through your replies as quickly as I can, but may have to wait another day or two for me to get through them all. - Shudde  talk 12:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

References
 * I see for large parts of the article you rely on Cullimore's interview of Penfold. I'm wondering how reliable this is? I mean it's going to be fine for certain indisputable facts, and also for Penfold's view on aspects of his life and career, but are there any circumstances where this source may be considered unreliable?
 * As you say, it's fine for uncontroversial facts and for his opinions. Its suitability for other things is questionable. I don't think there's much that would be controversial except some f the Sierra Leone stuff and I'll see if I can dig up other sources for that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

- I'll add more comments later. Hopefully won't be too long. - Shudde  talk

Second evacuation, Lomé Accord, and replacement
 * "The evacuation was criticised," maybe find a more reliable source than Cullimore for this statement.
 * I haven't been able to find much in the way of criticism, btu I did find a source that said a lot of people chose to say, so I've just removed the mention of criticism.
 * "Penfold's term as high commissioner expired in April 2000. He requested a British military adviser be sent to Sierra Leone, as well as an extension to his own term, both of which were denied. He left the country on 30 April and was succeeded by Alan Jones.[41] After returning to the UK, he applied for multiple posts but was turned down for each. He was asked to take early retirement, but was keen to retire on his own terms. He eventually took a job as a conflict adviser to DfID, having developed good relations with the department earlier in his career.[11][41]" - same problem here, I'd like to see it reference from better sources than an interview with Penfold himself
 * I've added a quote from the Cullimore source that hopefully makes clear the last part of this paragraph is in fact Penfold's opinion. Should reduce the need for another source. Hopefully this is acceptable to you. Feel free to change it if you desire. - Shudde  talk 08:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Other
 * Maybe make it clear that his wife Celia in the infobox is is second wife
 * I'm not sure how I'd do this (or why it matters)
 * Seems to be standard practise - Robert Redford, Nelson Mandela - Shudde  talk 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's standard, but I don't vehemently object to it. That said, I don't think his first wife is named anywhere, so I'm not sure how to denote the second marriage in the infobox. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was only concerned that looking at the infobox readers may get the impression he was only married once – I suppose if it's important enough to put in the infobox, it's important enough to get right. I would suggest having "Celia (199X–present)" in there, but we don't know the exact year they got married. If you come across the year of their marriage then I'd do that, otherwise leave it. - Shudde  talk 08:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I think the article is very interesting, and think it is in great shape. My major concern here is about close paraphrasing. I did a few spot checks on this, and think it needs to be checked by the nominator. This may take some time, however close paraphrasing can be a pretty big copyright concern. My only other concern is regarding the reliability of the Cullimore source, as it is basically a transcriped interview with the subject of the article. I'm worried this may be challenged as a reliable source in some cases. I think if those things are addressed, then it wouldn't be far off WP:FA standard. Congratulations on the work so far. Hope my comments are clear, let me know if you have any questions. I'm going to place this article on hold for now, but hopefully it'll be a pass in not too long! - Shudde  talk 03:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * see close paraphrasing comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * maybe an issue with one source, see above.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * would be good if there was an image, but understand how it would be hard to get hold of one with an appropriate licence.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * would be good if there was an image, but understand how it would be hard to get hold of one with an appropriate licence.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Query
This review is now two months old, and is the oldest outstanding review. What's left to be done by reviewer and by nominator? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * has said to me that he has limited internet access, and that he has a new source for the article; and for that reason I have given a lot of leeway regarding the time-frame for the review. I'm happy with the situation as it stands, and don't plan on letting this review linger forever – however at the moment I'm comfortable to let things move along slowly. If you have a specific concern with the age of the review let me know, but I don't think it's a problem right now. - Shudde  talk 11:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Passing
I'm going to pass the article. I'm pretty comfortable that it meets the criteria, and I think that nothing too controversial is sourced solely by Cullimore. Would probably be good if some third party sources were used more, but I don't think anything [potentially] controversial remains. Also think the prose is very clear now. Congratulations on the article. Pretty good to finally have this one ticked off! - Shudde  talk 08:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)