Talk:Wilfrid Eggleston/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 6, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * 1) Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
 * 2) NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
 * 3) Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
 * 4) Perhaps consider adding an infobox to bring out key article info in a quick fashion for our readers?
 * 5) Copyvio Detector shows no problems here - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Wilfrid+Eggleston&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0 - good job here!
 * 6) Early life sect - suggest expand, if possible, but at least break apart into two paragraphs.
 * 7) Career sect - recommend breaking some of the larger paragraphs apart into smaller paragraphs, for increased ease of reader flow for our readers.
 * 8) Honours, recognition and death - this sect is confusing and sort of could have better chronological order and presentation. Could the sect be expanded a bit more, as well? Please try to fix the timeline presentation in that sect, as now it stands it is out of order.
 * 2. Verifiable?: As there's not too many, please increase article posterity for future verification by archiving all links via archiveurl and archivedate fields to citations with the Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Lede intro sect should be expanded a bit more, perhaps to 3 paragraphs, to fully function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Stable? Upon my inspection of article edit history and article talk page history, article is stable. No outstanding issues here.
 * 6. Images?: Please move this image to Wikimedia Commons -- File:OrionAlberta.jpg you can see Moving files to the Commons for more help. Also please standardize this image page with commons:Template:Information, once it is located at Wikimedia Commons.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up, I'll do my best to address your suggestions. I would like to add that although I will do my utmost, significant expansion may be tricky given the lack of verifiable sources available online. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Well written?:


 * 4. Infobox added.
 * 6. Broken down, expanded.
 * 7. Broken down.
 * 8. Chronology amended, expanded.


 * 2. Verifiable?:


 * Archived using WebCite service.
 * Note: The reference entitled Archives Search - Library and Archives Canada won't process for some reason. Let me know if this is a major issue.


 * 3. Broad in coverage?:


 * Lede expanded.


 * 6. Images?:


 * Uploaded to commons and added description.

I hope this goes a way to passing this article. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, passed as GA. Thanks for being so responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations. Much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)