Talk:William Wilberforce/GA Review


 * 1) Consider editing years to for clarity: 1796-1799, rather than 1796-99.
 * 2) The very first n dash in the lead needs to be spaced because the components to the left and right are speced
 * 3) Proofread for commas: these include, but are not limited to, commas for compound sentences and the serial comma
 * 4) Likewise, commas are only necessary for appositives if the appositive phrase is obvious/implied ("...while dining with his old Cambridge friend Gerard Edwards" no comma)
 * 5) Proofread for missing words and articles (a, an, the)
 * 6) All picture captions that are fragment rather than sentences should not end in periods
 * 7) Why are the Napoleonic Wars pipe-linked as "War with France"?
 * 8) Habeas corpus should be italicized, but not capitalized
 * 9) I am concerned that the section "Abolition of the slave trade" begins to divert slightly into an article about abolition in GB and away from the subject of Wilberforce. I realize the two are intertwined, but my feeling is that parts of that section, the reader loses focus of what the article is actually supposed to be about.
 * 10) While there are many inline citations throughout, almost all of them come from only four sources. I would say, esp. for such an important and nuanced issue, that this number is borderline for GA and vastly inadequate for FA.

NB: While the above list is long, the considerations within it are overall very small, nit-picky things that are easily fixed and no big deal. Overall, this article is really well-done and is evident of a lot of work (although sources do need work). Great job!

--Malachirality (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review and suggestions, Malachirality, which are very helpful. As someone who has a bunch of the recent editing on this article, I have slightly mixed feelings about the very kindly-meant nomination, as I haven't yet finished what I had hoped to on the article in terms of citations, clarity etc.  But the nomination may give me the push I need to complete my own improvements as well as responding to yours, so watch this space.  I was interested in your comment about the focus on only four sources... my own experience is that many historical biographies of this sort do rely on relatively few sources, partly because recent biographies are the best sources of information for such an article, as journal articles etc  don't really cover this material. See this random sample of FAs for examples: Ælle of Sussex Princess Alice of Battenberg, Huldrych Zwingli, Roy Welensky. Slp1 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re:sources -- Yeah, I can see that. It wasn't really an issue for this nom, and you can deal with FA once it gets there, but you're probably right. It's up to you, though, to determine whether the sources are comprehensive, neutral, and accurate; I'll just take your word for it.


 * And how long do you think it would take to bring the article up to what you see as completeness? I can put it on hold definitely for a week, likely two or three weeks if that's what it takes and progress is being made. --Malachirality (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On Hold until 24 March 2008. Can be extended if adequate progress is made and there is a reasonable timeframe for finishing. --Malachirality (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is very well written and thoroughly researched. I believe it meets the GA criteria and can be listed. Prose is of excellent quality, and there are sufficient reference citations. I cannot find a fault here. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)