Talk:R v Baillie/GA1

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it. No disamb. or invalid external links.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Italicize title.
 * ❌. Er, it's already italicized, isn't it? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is what Racepacket meant, but I may be wrong. Jenks24 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Exactly. Racepacket (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Except where the name of hospital is used, please lower case the word hospital.
 * ✅ A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "After reporting the problems and failing to gain any recognition"->"After reporting the problems and failing to gain any redress"
 * ✅A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the first paragraph identifies the hospital being "for Seamen", its connection to the Royal Navy is not clear when one reads the second paragraph of the lead.
 * ❌. Leaving this one for Ironholds to handle. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "23 Nuvember 1778"->"23 November 1778"
 * ✅ A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work on this article. It now exceeds the GA criteria. Please consider adding the Erskine portrait, but that is not required as a part of the GA review. Congratulations on another Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "with good service in retirement."->"with good health care in retirement." ???
 * ✅ A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Here he found corruption, in breach of the Royal Charter,"->"He found corruption there, in breach of its Royal Charter,"
 * ❌. The way I parse this sentence, the current wording makes more sense. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it we were talking about the hospital's Royal Charter. At the time, there were many, many royal charters for different institutions. Racepacket (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "detailing the problems and corruption,"->"detailing the corruption problems,"
 * ❌. "Problems" and "corruption" are, as I'm reading it, distinct entities. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, fluffernutter, the current article implies that they are distinct entities, but we are leaving it to the reader to guess as to what problems existed other than the corruption issue. I don't feel strongly, and I am not as familiar as Ironholds as to what all of the sources said, but could we please make a deliberate judgment as to whether there were problems beyond corruption, and if they were share those with the reader. Racepacket (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the next clause involves denying sailors food I think we can state with some certainty that there were problems beyond giving cronies kickbacks. Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Racepacket (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The publication of the pamphlet reflected badly on the Earl of Sandwich, who was at the time First Lord of the Admiralty and had, to gain votes and pay off political debts, given many of the positions in the Hospital to his cronies, who had never served as sailors." - run on sentence - break into two or three.
 * ✅ A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "that he was suspended"->"that Baillie was suspended" - pronoun antecedent.
 * ✅ A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "had his associates"->"had associates" - at this point, he is Baillie.
 * ✅ A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Could you expand the aftermath section to summarize Erskine's later legal and political career?
 * What happened to the Earl of Sandwich following the case?
 * Was Baillie ever reinstated? What happened to him following the case?
 * All ✅. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars.
 * 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):
 * How about using File:Thomas Erskine by Thomas Lawrence 1802.jpg in the article?
 * Any particular reason? Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that a large part of the article discusses what a wonderful job Erskine did to turn around the outcome of the case, but that we do not include his portrait when it is available on Commons. This is a suggestion, not a GA requirement. Racepacket (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason? Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that a large part of the article discusses what a wonderful job Erskine did to turn around the outcome of the case, but that we do not include his portrait when it is available on Commons. This is a suggestion, not a GA requirement. Racepacket (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)