Talk:Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907/GA1

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


 * Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
It looks to be a comprehensive, wide-ranging, article, so it should make GA without too much trouble.Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

The article was interesting, comprehensive and wide ranging.

"Niggles" / Areas of improvement

 * 1) The article appeared to have been written by a subject matter expert for other subject experts. "Army" is not my area of expertise, or a subject that I have any personal experience.  The use of wikilinks, to provide explanation of the technical terms used within the article, needed improving to assist non-subject-expert readers. Corps, Carbines, mobilization, etc, are not terms that I am familiar with, so they need links (but not too many), which were absent, so I added a few during the review for my benefit. On the other hand, university and other non-army terms were linked and I did not regard them as quite so necessary. The article is probably about right now in respect of wikilinks.
 * 2) The Implementation of the Act subsection has a {citation needed} flag. Defects such as this, and I only found one, should have been resolved before WP:GAN. I did not see it until after the decision to award GA-class had been made; otherwise I would have put the article On Hold.

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA; and can you add the missing citation soon?Pyrotec (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That one citation flag is annoying me greatly - I put it there myself, as a "find footnote here" reminder, and I'd forgotten about it until now. I'm fairly sure it's accurate and noncontentious, I'm just not sure where on earth I got it from. I'll have another scour. Shimgray | talk | 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and I've found something. It's not the source I originally used, but it certainly covers it. Shimgray | talk | 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)