Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Boycott/archive1

Charles Boycott
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because myself and others have been working on it for the past while, and I would like to nominate it for GA or FA. I think it is broad enough for FA, but as I haven't brought an article there before I'd like other editors to take a look over it. What needs to be done to the article before it meets the criteria?

Thanks, Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  16:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have previously worked on this article; most of my work there has been copyediting. I've never been involved in a GA or FA review either, so I don't know much about the current standards at those places. The only major problem that I have noticed related to both FAC and GAC is that the images lack alt text. The prose might need a bit of tightening here and there, but this is best done by someone who has never read the article before. Here is what I've found during a quick read:
 * In the section "Life on Achill Island", no year is specified. When did Boycott receive his inheritance? I'd assume around 1853, but I don't know.
 * Marlow mentions both inheritances and clearly connects the first one with the move to Achill, but does not mention a date for either, Boycott, by Charles Arthur Boycott (a relative of his namesake) mentions 1854 as the date of the move to Achill, but does not mention either inheritance. I have previously only used the latter book for non-controversial facts, due to the obvious potential for bias, so I have added 1854 as the date for the move, but have left the inheritances without a date. I will have a look at other sources to see what they say. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  12:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds fine now. That section needed a year to anchor it. Graham 87 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did Boycott say that his initial life on the island was difficult? The same question applies to the text "Boycott later said that he had written to Lord Erne about the situation" in the "Social ostracism applied to Boycott" section.
 * On the first point, that was an error on my part, it was Marlow who said that. On the second point, the only inaccuracy is in the word "later", which isn't in the source, according to Marlow, Boycott did say that (page 136). Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  13:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All good now. Graham 87 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe can be used to show today's equivalent of the 19th-century prices, but not too often, because many of the numbers speak for themselves. Graham 87  02:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at this tomorrow, I didn't have time today. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  22:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the documentation for that template, the template shouldn't be used for government expenses or capital expenses, so the only figure I think it could be used on is the worth of Boycott's crops. The main reason for including the value of the crops is to compare it with the government and others expenses. I'm undecided about including the template for the crops only. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  22:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that the template shouldn't be used for government or capital expenses. There's probably not much point in using it for the crop values; the raw numbers are illustrative enough. Graham 87 01:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added alt text, can you check if it is satisfactory, I'm not sure how detailed I need to be. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  11:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The alt text should describe the image concisely for people who can't see the image. As a blind person, I benefit from alt text, but at the same time, it's hard for me to advise people on which alt text to use in specific situations. However, I'll give it a go ... in the first image, the alt text should briefly describe how Boycott's features are exaggerated like "Boycott shown with a long nose and big floppy ears" (I'm just making things up, of course). With the church image, a description isn't needed to understand the article, so I'm not too sure what to put in the alt text there (it's probably fine, but the alt text shouldn't re-state the caption). With the house, the alt text should contain a short description of it ... I would assume that it was a fairly grand house for its area. The alt text for the last three images is good; the alt text for the map gives me a general idea of what's going on, and the alt text for the photos doesn't need any more detail than it has. Graham 87 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have improved the alt text now. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  22:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The alt text sounds good now. About the boarding school where he went, should the name be capitalised, or is "Blackheath Boarding School" even the correct name? He definitely didn't go to Blackheath Proprietary School. I'm just wondering if his school has a Wikipedia article. His church doesn't seem to have one, at any rate. Graham 87 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, all sources indicate a boarding school in Blackheath, but none are specific about what one, Boycott says that it "may well have had military associations". It definitely wasn't Blackheath Proprietary School, knowing his family's political affiliations, it is likely that the school no longer exists. I think I misinterpreted Boycott as giving Blackheath Boarding School as the name. I have changed that sentence to say "a boarding school in Blackheath", I think that's more accurate. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  10:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for now, unless something more specific turns up. Graham 87 01:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)