Talk:Wager Mutiny/GA2

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 23:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

On an initial pass of this article, although there is clearly potential for a GA article here, I see quite a few problems that I expect will take some time to resolve: A more detailed review will probably identify further issues. Before I get too carried away with my comments, I just want to check that the nominator has the wherewithal to commit to the necessary revisions. I suspect that the remedial work involved will require full access to the modern sources at least (the historic ones may well be easily found online given they won't be under copyright). It may be better for me to quickfail this review to allow the necessary revisions to take place outside of the GA process and then renominate it when it is in a better condition. If that approach is taken, I would be happy to provide more feedback for improvements on the talk page on the article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The text needs a good copy edit to tighten up the prose, remove potentially intricate detail, and streamline the narrative. There is excessive usage of ranks; it is OK to introduce a person with the rank e.g. Captain Cheap, but then use Cheap thereafter.
 * There are quite a few dupe links.
 * Everything needs to be sourced but there are a number of citation tags. I added a few where although a citation is provided for a quote, I am uncertain whether it also applied to the paragraph concerned.
 * The usage of quotes is excessive.
 * The further reading section is in the wrong place and includes some sources used in the article.
 * The formatting of the various sources in the bibliography lacks consistency - the book template should be used.
 * Some references, e.g. Sutton, Marley should be listed in the bibliography and a sfn used in the references instead.
 * Some references lack page numbers e.g. note 73 to Byron & Morris and note 74 to Morris.
 * I am uncomfortable with the reliance on the relatively historic sources used - these are OK for direct quotations to support the viewpoints/opinions of the persons involved but if possible modern sources should otherwise be used.
 * I see now you wrote the bulk of the article so presumably access to the sources won't be an issue. Zawed (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * just checking you are aware of the above comments. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, just read them, thank you. Whilst I do appreciate and understand your comments, I'm minded that the amount of work involved is too onerous. Personally I'm happy with the article as-is, and given that modern original sources are very limited, i.e. I will need to do (no-no) original research at the British Library and the British Museum it isn't really possible to satisfy the GA requirements, even before one considers covid. Oberon Houston (talk •
 * Oberon Houston, I don't mean to do original research, I just suspect that you may be able to reduce the number of times the old sources are cited by using the newer sources; it may mean having to rephrase things so that it is supported by the new sources (for example notes 14 & 15, dealing with the rounding of the Horn could be replaced by Williams although some detail may need trimming). I still think the bones of a GA are here. I will fail this article now in light of your comment but I would happy to take another look and provide more feedback before you submit it for GA again. I strongly suggest that you also take a look at a few recent GAs, including their reviews, to get an idea of how this article stacks up. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)