Talk:Prince William, Duke of Gloucester/GA1

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

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Comments:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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.:
 * Article appears to be stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images complies to requirements and are properly captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images complies to requirements and are properly captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * With Lewis militarily-minded Gloucester operated his own miniature army. - This sentence requires punctuation; a comma after Lewis.
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikilinks that do not go anywhere should be removed at this stage.
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikilinks should only be made on the first mention, and not repeated.
 * But surely the links in the 'Death' section should be kept? According to Linking, 'In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following:

where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first.'
 * I'm familiar with the exceptions. As it's just one, you can leave it there. There are articles which are at least three times longer. That would be a long way from the first. -- S Masters (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. With that in mind, I've removed the double links. Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As part of his treatment, Gloucester went outside every day in his carriage, to maximise his exposure to the 'pure air' of the gravel pits. - "Pure air" should have double quotation marks, not single. Same with "amazed", etc. further down.
 * I changed them. But according to the Oxford A-Z of Grammar & Punctuation by John Seely, 'there is no fixed rule about whether to use single or double inverted commas...Single inverted commas tend to be preferred in Britain'. This article is written in British English after all. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Manual of Style/Register. -- S Masters (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Numbers greater than nine should be written in numerical form as per WP:MOS.
 * Fixed. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary: There are just a few small issues that need to be fixed before a decision can be made regarding this article. I will allow up to seven days for these to be resolved.
 * Why are the parts about the arms in italics? Please see WP:ITALICS.
 * Regarding the last comment, I can say that the description of arms is always in italics. Perhaps it has got something to do with the rules of heraldry but I am not sure. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked the page on heraldry and it doesn't have much italics on it. Further, I checked the Arms section for Prince Charles and no italics are used. -- S Masters (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * James II of England, a featured article, has italics in its arms section. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I can't find any official policies on this, I will accept your argument on good faith. -- S Masters (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SMasters. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jack1755 for fixing all the issues. As there are no issues outstanding, I'm satisfied that the article now meets all the requirements for a Good Article. As such, I am happy to pass it for GA status.