Talk:Robert Deniston Hume/GA1

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

Reviewer: — S Marshall T/C 18:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 ✅:
 * (a) ✅; and
 * (b) ✅.

✅:
 * (a) ✅;
 * (b) ✅; and
 * (c) ✅.

✅:
 * (a) ✅; and
 * (b) ✅.

✅. ✅. ✅:
 * (a) ✅; and
 * (b) ✅.



Criterion 1a:- Two issues.
 * In the infobox, the death date reads "62-63". It should unambiguously read "63".
 * Reference 17 refers to a direct quotation but the quotation is ambiguous because it is missing the opening speech marks.

Nits (not GA criteria failures, but things I think it would be good to think about): There are a few instances of redundancy in the writing (e.g. "he was adopted by foster parents, the Robert Denistons," → "he was adopted by the Robert Denistons"). It's not clear to me why, in the second paragraph of "politician", "in support of" should be italicised. I do realise that the article emphasises that he's not a populist, but I found the italics slightly distracting without making the material clearer. The "early life" section overlaps with the "family, death and legacy" section, containing the same material; on first read-through, I thought he'd married Celia Bryant twice! Maybe move the first sentence of "family, death and legacy" to "early life".

Overall: A well-written, well-researched and balanced article that I look forward to promoting to GA status.— S Marshall T/C 19:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to review this article. You are right on all counts. I've changed the age to 63 and removed the end quotes from the blockquote, which shouldn't have any regular quotation marks, per WP:MOSQUOTE. I also made the other three changes you recommended. I had wondered about the wisdom of putting "in support of" in italics, and I had just not noticed the repetition of the Celia material or the redundancy in the "foster parent" sentence. Finetooth (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect. I'm pleased to pass this article as a GA.  I ought to remind you to review an article yourself, so I'll do so, though I'm well aware that you're a prolific reviewer and would likely have done so anyway.— S Marshall  T/C 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)