Talk:Ronald Poulton/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * - I am about to start the review. Scanning the article there is a "Citation Needed" tag in there, perhaps that can be addressed while I work on the review over the next couple of days?  MPJ  -DK 19:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox
I like to first cover these, get them out of the way and I have seen them hit on issues.
 * Disambig links - No issues detected
 * External links - No issues detected, although there are a couple of sources that redirect, may become a link rot problem in the future but it is not currently an issue
 * Copyvio detector - This has hits between 54.5% likely and 1.0% likely, since it is just a tool I reviewed each of them to see if there are actual issues or not. Looking at what is called out it is primarily quotes that it hits on, which is only natural. When I review the actual article I will ensure each quote is cited and appropriate. But nothing I see here makes me suspect copyright violations.

General review
Coming soon

Well Written

 * TBD

Verifiable

 * TBD

Broad in coverage

 * TBD

Neutral

 * TBD

Stable

 * TBD

Illustrated

 * Two pictures, I do see an issue
 * File:Ronald Poulton-Palmer.jpg - is listed as being released by the copyright holder (Udufruduhu) as derivative work of the original. Problem is the original file was deleted as it did not contain any of the required information? Now given the age of the photo (106 years old) there is a legitimate claim for a fair use or free use license for this. But that's not what is listed and I am not convinced the current license is appropriate?
 * File:England XV v France 1914.jpeg - Public domain tag, appropriately so.
 * File:Ronald Poulton-Palmer grave.jpg - Same issue as above, but to compound the problem it refers to the same file name as the picture of Mr. Poulton-Palmer as well, which cannot be correct since one is a portrait, the other his tombstone.
 * Currently I would go with ❌


 * Editor seems to have retired, no activity on Wikipedia and no responses here. I am going to post at War and Sports projects to see if anyone is interested in picking this up or I'll fail it in 2 days.  MPJ  -DK 19:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have not had any indication that anyone is willing to step up and do the GA work, so I am not going to put in the time to do a complete review, sorry but that seems like a futile effort. So I will fail this, if anyone wants to bring it back to GA feel free.  MPJ  -DK 00:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)