Talk:Robert Hanham Collyer

Ref error messages
There seems to be some problem with the entries for: (a) * Elliotson, John (April 1855). "On the claims of Dr. Robert H. Collyer in reference ..." The Zoist: A Journal of Cerebral Physiology & Mesmerism, and Their Applications to Human Welfare. 13 (49): 61–68. and (b) * Richards, Irving T. (June 1934). "Mary Gove Nichols and John Neal". The New England Quarterly. 7 (2): 335–55. In relation to both these entries, the "Preview" displays a warning that "One or more ((cite journal)) templates have maintenance messages". Given that there are no other details/instructions provided, I have no idea about how to proceed. Can you please explain; and, also, direct me to (i) what the specific problem is, and (ii) how that problem can be remedied. Lindsay658 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Lindsay658 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I remedied the problem with this edit. The citation templates automatically generate CITEREF ids from the supplied parameters. If you try to generate the same CITEREF with the |ref= parameter, this maintenance message about duplicates appears. It took a lot of careful parsing of the instructions at Category:CS1 maint: ref duplicates default to figure this out, then some experimentation to verify it. And I may still be doing it wrong, but the maintenance messages are now gone.  — jmcgnh (talk)  (contribs) 00:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Lindsay658 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sections on an article talk page should not be blanked, even if you were the one who added the material. It's not a big thing, but it's only on your own user talk page where you have this freedom.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Post-GA1 discussion
Hello, Lindsay658!

According to a Wikipedia Good Article criteria 3.a, the GA article should be broad in its coverage, so that the reviewer should make sure that the article addresses the main aspects of the topic. This means that the article should not omit any major facts or details that are significant to the topic. It should provide a comprehensive overview of the subject, including its history, notable controversies, different perspectives, and current status. However, it is important to note that "broad in its coverage" does not mean the article should contain every minor detail or event related to the topic. Instead, it should focus on the information that readers are most likely to be looking for and which aspects are most important to understanding the topic. The article should strive to stay balanced and neutral, representing all viewpoints fairly and without bias. Lastly, while the article should be thorough, it should also be accessible and understandable to non-experts, avoiding unnecessary jargon and complexity. The goal is to provide a well-rounded, informative, and engaging resource for anyone interested in the topic.

The understanding of broadness in coverage or completeness is a subjective matter; each reviewer has their own understanding of these notions of broadness and completeness. What is enough for one reviewer may not be enough for another, and vice versa. The nominee may also disagree with the reviewer on whether a particular aspect should be or should not be covered.

If a reviewer raised a particular point that the nominee considers irrelevant or not worth mentioning, it would always be good for the nominee to start a topic on the Talk page and explain why they believe this issue is irrelevant. This may attract the opinions of other Wikipedia editors.

A new reviewer, when checking whether the nominee addressed the objections of the first reviewer, may read these arguments on the Talk page. If they find the arguments reasonable, they would not demand again that they be addressed. This process ensures a fair and comprehensive review of the article. It also encourages open dialogue and collaboration, which are key principles of interaction among the the Wikipedia editors. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)