Talk:Ramsay Weston Phipps/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1];
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Disambiguations: one dab link found, which needs to be fixed: [3];  Done
• Linkrot: one link reported to be dead by the Featured article tools, which needs to be rectified: [4];  Done
• Alt text: there are no images used in the article, so Alt text is not an issue.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• in the Family section you have the word "Ramsey", should this be "Ramsay?"

• Ramsey Warde, Ramsay Weston Phipps.

• Sorry, I'm still confused. This is the one I'm referring to: "Ramsey Phipps was also a cousin of the Earls of Mulgrave" (in the final sentence of the first paragraph of the Family section). Is this correct? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Also in the Military career section, this one: "Ramsey Phipps married Anne Bampfylde..." Is this correct? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• And in the Bibliography, this one: "Phipps, Ramsey Weston". Is this correct? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• All are fixed. Thanks for catching that. auntieruth (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• in the Family seciton you have: "...with the rank of Colonel". Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms, where a rank is not being used as part of a title it should be lower case, e.g. Colonel Phipps, or Phipps was a colonel;

• fixed.

• in the Family section you have the word "honor", however, I think overall the article uses British English spelling, so this should be changed to "honour";

• some helpful soul started to convert it to British spelling, but I don't know British spelling very well. It should be in US spelling, since that is what is consistent. Honourable East India Company is a Proper noun, and can live as it is in a US spelling article. auntieruth (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the Military career section there is some overlink of "Royal Artillery" and "Woolwich";

•  Done

• in the Military career section is there a need to use the subject's full name in the second sentence "Ramsay Weston Phipps put on a uniform..."?

• fixed.

• Can you please check this one again, I don't see a change? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• okay. auntieruth (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• in the Military career section, do you know what medal it was that he was given to wear when Queen Victoria reviewed the troops;

• it was the Crimea War medal, with the Sevastopol clasp. I've linked it.

• in the Military career section, this clause doesn't quite sound right to me: "... and accept and transmit all orders" (there appears to be a tense issue, I think);

•  Done

• this clause seems a little awkward to me: "He married in 1906 to Margaret Percy Phipps..." (shouldn't it be "He married Margaret Percy Phipps in 1906..."?);

•  Done

• in the Career as military historian section, the first sentence is a bit indistinct. For instance the sentence does not clarify who "he" was, e.g. in this clause: "...and here he maintained..." (I think you need to mention Phipps by name here);
• in the Creation of his magnum opus section, "capitalized" should be "capitalised" if you are going with British English spelling;

• this is one of those cases .... I wrote it in US spelling, and someone converted. I have converted it to US spelling entirely. auntieruth (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the Creation of his magnum opus section you have "Napoleon's Marshals" and then later "...that of the marshals" (difference in capitalisation, which should be made consistent);

•  Done

• in the Creation of his magnum opus section, you have "Ramsey Weston Phipps": the spelling of the first name is inconsistent with the article title, also is there a need to use the subject's full name here?
• in the Creation of his magnum opus section, you have "ministers of the Empire", but then later "ministers of the empire" (difference in capitalisation of "empire");
• in the Creation of his magnum opus section you have overlinked "Napoleonic Wars"; Done
• in the Creation of his magnum opus section, "...Phipps' very capable granddaughter " (very capable seems a bit like a value judgement, probably best to remove "very capable" in my opinion);

• It is a value judgment, and I've made its source clearer.
• added quotation, slight adjustment. auntieruth (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the Reception section, "The army of the north was a bad army..." I think the word "bad" needs to be changed, it is not very descriptive and seems a bit value laden;

• again, a value judgment, one of Phipps. I've made the source clearer. auntieruth (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Phipps also ignores..." or should this be "ignored"? given that it is in the past?  Done
• there is some repetition in this sentence group: "...for the English reader. This feat in itself made volume three a useful tool for the reader..." (can you try to reword?);  Done
• Citation # 35 London Gazette no. 23966, p. 1923, 11 April 1873, needs an accessdate for consistency;  Done
• Citations # 53 & 55 appear to be the same and should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS (as you've done some already);

• if they are not consecutive, I don't use it.

• Seems a little confusing, but okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• as per above, Citations # 60 and # 62 appear to be the same;

• if they are not consecutive, I don't use it.

• are Citations #6, 31 and 49 (the obituaries) actually the same source?

• if they are not consecutive, I don't use it.

• What is the difference between "Phipps, p. vi" (citation # 57) and "Charles Phipps, p. vi" (citation # 56)? Is it the same source? If so it should be displayed consistently;

• This one still needs clarification. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I tweaked these some. they should be clearer now. auntieruth (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• In the Bibliography section (and throughout the text where you mention published works) some of the titles should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, for instance "Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Bengal, 1713–1948" should be "Parish Register Transcripts from the Presidency of Bengal, 1713–1948";

• this is not how they are capitalized in the title of the book. auntieruth (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about this. I suspect the MOS would say it would be an acceptable change of punctuation to capitalise it per the guideline, but I don't know. So I will strike it. Just be aware that it might get raised at a FAC if you take the article there. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• In the Bibliography section I can't see a work by Charles Phipps, there are ones by Pownoll and Ramsey Phipps, but not one by Charles;

• Charles Phipps wrote the introduction of 3 volumes, but he did not write anything himself.

• Sometimes you have "Retrieved on..." and then at other times you have "Accessed..." for your internet citations in the Bibliography;

• that is the template. auntieruth (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography you have: "One of the Protestant side" - is this the author? It seems a little strange for an author, does this mean it was anonymous?

• yes.

• That's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• The references appear to be reliable to me, everything appears to be covered by an appropriate citation and I don't believe that there is any original research.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• I think that you might possibly go into a bit too much detail in the family section, but I'm not sure about this. I've not read an article on a similar subject before, so am uncertain about the type of details required here. Is it really necessary to discuss the father's career in such detail and the lives of the siblings?

• I thought it established background on his interest, the family career choices, and establishing details on the children and granddaughter. auntieruth (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, that should be fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• Seems fine to me.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• The article does not appear to be subject to an edit war.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• There are no images used in the article. It is not a GA requirement for there to be any, so that is fine, but if you were able to find one, it would be great if it could be added to the article.

• none available that I could find, unless I were to use Napoleonic War images, etc., which really aren't relevant. Covers of the books also are not usable, because the articles are not about the books themselves. auntieruth (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• There are a few things that I feel need to be done to bring this article up to GA status, however, I do not feel that these warrant a quick fail as I believe that they are able to be achieved within a reasonable timeframe (timeframe is negotiable). As such I will place it on hold to see what changes are made before deciding upon the outcome. I'm prepared to accept any reasonable explainations of my concerns, and any changes will be taken into consideration, of course. Good work so far.
• Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)