Talk:Richard Sharp Smith/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 03:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm picking this one up too. I'll ping you once I've finished. grungaloo (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again, sorry it took me a minute to get to this. This article looks great, and I only have a few minor comments. Let me know when you're finished! grungaloo (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Grungaloo: I have made the updates you suggestions. Thanks so much for the tip on the inflation template. The editor that taught me about it (in anouther GA review) did not indicate the need for a closing date. I guess people assume it is self-updating. Thanks again for working on this and the other. You deserve more than one barnstar for this GA backlog blitz! Rublamb (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I really appreciate you saying that! The end_year isn't technically required, so the other GA reviewer didn't steer you wrong. Without it it will calculate to the last year it has data for (2023 I think), but personally I prefer having an end year so it's clear about when those numbers are from. Anyway, excellent work and congrats on another GA! grungaloo (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments
Refs 9,15,16,22,33,39,78 all good
 * ✅ - Would swap around to say "office of George Smith, a cousin of his".
 * ✅ - A lot of commas make this a bit hard to follow. I would split the sentence in two, first describing who he ordered supplies from, and then how he did the calculation.
 * ✅ - Most visible, does this mean most visited? Maybe say that, or "most prominent"? Comment: I could not find the concept of most visible, visited or prominent in the source, so made the sentence more general.
 * ✅ - This doesn't really match the source, it just says that the cottage was best-known for housing them. The way this sentence is worded implies others stayed at the house but they were less famous. Comment: good catch.
 * ✅ - Needs a date instead of "today's money". Template:Inflation has an end_year parameter you can use.
 * ✅ - Don't think "private" is needed, I don't think there are "public" practice architectural firms.
 * ✅ - Would replace "recently" with a date. Comment: I added a new source with a specific date.


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Section layout is good. Prose is well written.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Ref section exists, sources are reliable. Earwig flags a violation, but it's just picking up quotes which are appropriately quoted in the article. Use of sources is good and spot check is good.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good coverage, nothing missing from what I can see. Good level of detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Meets NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit warring
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are good, appropriately licensed, captions are good too.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: