Talk:William Tuke/GA1

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

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 04:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The page nominator has been in-active since April, so I'm looking at doing these fixes myself. If they are substantial enough, I'll relist the GA nomination. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've replied to all my critiques. I'd like at least one other contributor to comment here before approving this. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have read over the article, if there is going to be any issue, it would be with the sources or possibly the scope. However the article reads well and is free from errors, and it would appear everything is sourced, although I have only superficially examined the sources; and the scope is complete from my point of view given that I am reasonably knowledgeable but not an expert on the subject. It has been noted by spcoony that the lead is a bit short, and an extra paragraph there could be an improvement. Dysklyver  22:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
It is kind of power~enwiki to take the article in hand in the unusual circumstances. Unlike Dysklyver I have no knowledge at all of the subject, and these observations are from the layman's point of view: Those would be my only quibbles on the writing. If I were assessing the GAN (and I've done a fair few over the years) I'd rate the prose as acceptable for GA. I would, though, want to look closely at the sourcing. References 1 a-f seem to me too vague as they stand: page numbers are missing, making it hard to verify the statements attributed to the book in question. The link to the Amazon site is of no use at all, in my view. The two statements for which the ODNB is cited are faithful to the source, but the citation does not make it clear that it is a subscription site, and I think it ought to. I hope these few comments are helpful.  Tim riley  talk    11:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Lead: two noticeably odd decisions about what to link: I don't think anyone will ever need to click away from this page to find out what "businessman" means, but on the other hand a link to "abolitionist" would be helpful to many, I feel.
 * The Retreat: the article is mainly in BrE (rightly, given its subject) but a "favor" has crept into this section.
 * Other work: I boggle a bit at the statement that Tuke attended all the meetings of the Bible Society. Unless there's a very clear source for such a claim, I think it would be safer to say he attended them regularly.
 * I've made the suggested changes (with the exception of adding page numbers, which I am incapable of doing). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire situation here is unorthodox; I plan to pass this to GA status in 48 hours unless somebody comments otherwise. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)