Talk:John Dacey

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Dacey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this article to possibly be a Good Article. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 18:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   excessive amount of redlinks, please fix blacksmith

    Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   The claim that Dacey died of nephritis is unsourced.

    Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

   Ref#8 does not support statement (Dacey anti-tillite, against Federation), Ref#9 does clearly state Dacey was an anti-billite. (Also, it's not a plural is it?)

   Fixed the plural. It's in ref#9, the newspaper refers to him as "Mr. Dacey, anti-billite, from Sydney". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks. Yes, they all work well together taken as a whole.

   Please check all refs.

   I had a look, but what are you referring to specifically? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

   My concerns have been dealt with, all is well. I hadn't had a chance to check every reference so wanted someone to take another go at them.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Shearonink: See comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

   Congrats! John Dacey is now a Good Article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Dacey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160615123133/http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/Golden_Heritage/treasurers/26 to http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/Golden_Heritage/treasurers/26

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)