Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs · count) 07:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Beginning read-through today. Will report back soonest. Tim riley (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing borderline about this GAN. Impressively referenced, easy to read, no discernible POV, well-illustrated, and neither too long nor too short. A few minor points before I complete the formalities:

• General
  • Spelling – you use a mixture of ize/ization and ise/isation endings. In an English article I'd go for the latter if I were you (though I do know what Fowler said on the subject!)
  • Piping of "Sir" in knights' titles – inconsistent. I think Sir John Vanbrugh is much easier on the reader's eye than Sir Robert Walpole, which breaks the flow rather jarringly, but one way or the other you should be consistent.
• Lead
  • the title Queen of France – might cause the casual reader a moment's pause: perhaps "the nominal title"?
• Glorious revolution
  • Sarah has become "Lady Churchill" without explanation. It might be less confusing for the reader (and just as correct) if you called her Sarah Churchill at this mention.
• William and Mary
  • "According to James…." Bit of a tease, here. Did he say whether he gave her his leave?
• Reign
  • "Disassociated"? Strange word! Why not just "dissociated"?
• Two party politics
  • "Unloyal"? The word is, I find, in the OED, but this is the first time I have ever met it. Wouldn't the familiar "disloyal" do?
• War of the Spanish Succession
  • " By signing the Treaty of Utrecht…" – It isn't clear to me how the two parts of this sentence relate to each other.
• Legacy
  • "… indicate that she chose ministers and exercised her prerogatives wisely" – I think you ought to say within your text whose judgment this is. For such a very broad claim a second source to back up Waller would be good, too.
  • "Chauvinist" – you mean "male-chauvinist". Ordinary chauvinism is excessive nationalism.

Tim riley (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the review. I've attempted to address all your comments [1]. DrKiernan (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

I should be sorry not to see this excellent article at FAC at some point. It will get my vote. A most enjoyable and impressive piece of work. — Tim riley (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And I should have added congratulations! Tim riley (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for the review. DrKiernan (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)