Talk:1754 Taunton by-election

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taunton by-election, 1754/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 15:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll field this one, unless there are any objections ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Review table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The two empty columns in the table need to be either filled in or removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC) These are automatically generated by the template, to remove them I would have to build the table from scratch. However, I have filled one in, and put dashes in the other, which hopefully alleviates this concern? Harrias talk 10:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, that seems to have done the trick. Good job. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Generally very good. However, I would suggest that the lede makes reference to Halliday's party political affiliation (Whig, I presume) Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Added. Harrias talk 10:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	It would be ideal if the websites cited as references in this article were specially archived, lest they succumb to link rot in the coming years. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Done. Harrias talk 10:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are a few examples where I feel that we could use in-line references to a greater degree. For instance, in the first paragraph of "Vacancy and nominations" we have two sentences before a citation appears. Now I appreciate that that citation probably covers the information in both sentences, but that would be clearer were the citation to appear at the end of each sentence. This could help prevent misunderstandings in future, particularly from those editors who like to slap a "citation needed" tag on almost every sentence without one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC) I would suggest that the fault would be with those editors, not this article, which adheres to the MOS guidance on referencing, specifically WP:REPCITE. Harrias talk 10:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think that it would nevertheless be good to have some more information on both eighteenth-century Taunton and on Britain's political situation at the time in the "Background" section. That way, the reader won't have to start clicking on links to Whig and the like in order to understand what this particular article is talking about. As it stands, the reader really does have to have a background understanding in eighteenth-century British history to properly appreciate this article's content. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC) I don't disagree, but I'm struggling slightly to work out the right scope; I've added a little, how does that help? Harrias talk 10:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm happy to pass this one. Midnightblueowl (talk)

Thanks for your review. Due to some delays, I'm travelling for the next couple of days, so it might be a few days before I get back to this. Harrias ^talk 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's okay; have a good time travelling! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Back home now, but have the typical pile of work to catch up on. Will try and find some time for this before the weekend though. Harrias ^talk 21:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)