Talk:Thomas Babington Macaulay/GA1

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll start this review today. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

It's a good start, but could benefit from some fleshing out of the text. Here's what I have so far:


 * Early life section:
 * You list his father's name, but what about his mother's?


 * The first sentence is convoluted, could probably be broken up.


 * The second sentence has a [citation needed] tag.


 * Before he was called to the bar, did he read law somewhere, either at a school or in another lawyer's office?
 * ❌ You just wrote "he studied law". Where? With whom?


 * Did he have any sort of legal career? Usually someone isn't called to the bar and then immediately quits the profession.


 * Is there a better cite for this than Encyclopedia Britannica?
 * A brief clause explaining who "Conversation" Sharpe is would be useful. Like "...Richard 'Conversation' Sharpe, a banker and politician..."


 * Political career:
 * Why did Lansdowne give him the parliamentary seat? Did they know each other before?  What about Macaulay impressed the marquess?
 * Macaulay became a celebrity in the dispute with utilitarian and Milton theory ✅
 * Where is this in the article?


 * You should explain that the Reform Act abolished rotten boroughs, so that's why he represented Leeds instead.
 * I beg your pardon
 * What I mean is, you should explain the Reform Act and rotten boroughs, as well as why Macauley moved to represent Leeds.
 * If the Reform Act is important to Macauley's career, you should explain a bit about it. It's essential in understanding his political life.


 * Was Macaulay one of the main movers of the Reform Act, or did he just vote for it?
 * The former ✅


 * India
 * "he was appointed as the first Law Member of the Governor-General's Council": What were his duties in that office? Why was he selected?
 * A law member is associated with law.The reason of his selection is mentioned above ❌
 * No, it's not, not that I can tell.


 * Should "anglicised" be capitalized?
 * Why?


 * "In the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny of 1857, Macaulay's criminal law proposal was enacted". It would help to explain what the Mutiny was (just a sentence or two) and what Macaulay's proposal entailed.
 * That is a long story.It is known as First War of Indian independence.It was the first mass protest by Indians against the British.❌
 * If it's important, a few sentences should help the reader understand it.


 * The idea that many of the reforms are still in place today should have a citation.


 * That's all for now, I'll continue through the article tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Government minister
 * Some more detail about his election as MP for Edinburgh could be useful.
 * ✅-That would lead to unecessary detailing


 * "Macaulay's position, slightly modified, became the basis of copyright law..." What is that position? It's not clear.
 * ✅.Mentioned earlier only


 * The whole second paragraph lacks citation, other than the cite to the Gazette concerning his peerage.


 * "In 1852, the voters of Edinburgh offered to re-elect him to Parliament." Which voters? The members of one of the parties?


 * are you still interested in finishing this review? If not, we should withdraw it and re-list when you have more time.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Literary works
 * This whole section is uncited. A citation to the sentence about the poems being "very popular" would be especially useful.


 * You say they're popular, but is there any analysis of his poetry, either from contemporaries or from biographers?
 * ✅RRD13 (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Historian and Political writing
 * Some analysis of how his History was received would be useful. It was a very influencial book and shaped perceptions of the Glorious Revolution for many years to come. I see you've done some of this in the "Political writing" section. Maybe it would be best to combine them, since his view of history overlapped considerably with his politics.
 * This section largely lacks citation.


 * Later life
 * This section is mostly fine but, again, is sparsely cited.


 * The line about his memory seems random and misplaced. Is there somewhere earlier in the article you can move it to work it more naturally into the narrative?
 * Where?RRD13 (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the line? The last sentence in "Later life". Where should you move it? I don't know.


 * Legacy as a historian
 * I think it's conventional to put the period inside the quotation marks, but if this is different in British English, nevermind.
 * What is period?
 * It's sometimes called a "full stop," I think. The dot at the end of a sentence.
 * ✅Yes you are right.


 * The long Acton quotation would be better as block quote. There's a Template:blockquote for it.
 * ✅Already done


 * In general, the quotes are good, but are a bit too long. Some selective editing might make it more interesting.
 * ✅It is shortened.If more editing is done, useful points will be missing.


 * Comment by TonyTheTiger
 * I am noticing that this review seems to be passing along without any check for the WP:ICs. There about least four paragraphs without any. Since a well-structured article introduces a new topic with each paragraph, we need at least one IC per paragraph in a well-structured article. I think some ICs should be added to this article or it should be restructured.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There are too many problems, and this review has been open too long already. I'm going to fail it, but I think you should look at what's here and continue to improve it before resubmitting.  It has the makings of a good article, just needs some more work.  --Coemgenus (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)