Talk:Victorian era/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Well, this is a remarkable improvement. I have a few very small comments that may be worth actioning.

• The artist of the lead image should be wikilinked in the caption, and I suggest named in full as it's the first instance.  Done

• The caption to the painting of Rorke's Drift should name the artist and provide the painting's date.  Done

• The image "Slum area in Glasgow (1871)" is missing its "|upright" parameter.

Llewee, it would be very helpful if you could give me a heads up on progress, both by indicating below each comment when you have actioned or otherwise responded to it, and if you're away for a period when you will be resuming editing. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap apologies, I hadn't updated the review for a little while as I got distracted by other things. I probably won't get a chance today but I will find publishers, ISBNs and have a look for Atterbury-2012 on the bibliography page over the next few days. The only thing I probably can't do anything about is page numbers as I don't own most of these books.--Llewee (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. In that case, the refs without page numbers will basically have to be replaced with refs to other sources, as we can't create a GA with a set of partial citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Llewee, do you have a plan for completing this GAN which includes getting everything cited, one way or another? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap I have bought a general reference encyclopedia on the Victorian era which I should be able to use to fill in the gaps where book page numbers aren't available. Llewee (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I think all the issues with references have been dealt with. I've added ISBN's where possible but it was quite hard finding some of them, especially for the older books.--Llewee (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Well done, and thank you, I hope you are pleased with the result. For future reference, the usual thing with older books that don't have ISBNs is to provide the OCLC. There is no quid pro quo with GANs but if you'd like to pick an article or two from the GAN list, it'd be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

References

• Some 38 of the refs are in "Smith, John" format; many of the rest are in "John Smith" format; a few like [3]..[7] are in "J Smith" format (and there are minor variants with spaced or unspaced initials, as in [27] and [83]). It is debatable whether having just one format is mandatory at GA, but it is certainly the case that it looks unworkmanlike (the adjacent [91] and [92] for Simon Szreter use two different formats, for instance). I suggest you choose a format for the authors and stick to it.  Done

• Similarly, many of the refs (e.g. [55]) use (Publisher, Year); others like [100] use (year) ...... Publisher; while [118] uses (year) ... City: Publisher. Any one of these would be fine, but all three does look a bit random.  Done I've put all the references (apart from [21] which has an unusual structure) into proper formatting now which should deal with these first two issues.

• Several refs provide ISBNs, which is a helpful thing as it enables readers to retrieve full details of these books. Many others do not. GAN does not require ISBNs, but it would be desirable to include them uniformly for all book refs rather than just some of them.

• I note in passing that several refs, e.g. [16] are text-only short form refs with an implied link to another ref (in [16]'s case, [8]. This does make retrieval hard for reviewers and more importantly for readers. The use of templates for refs is not mandatory at GA but it'd clearly be more navigable.

• Sometimes it's obscure which is the 'main' ref and which the 'satellite'; both [28] and [105] are Briggs' The Age of Improvement: both provide the full name, and neither provide the publisher.

• Several page ranges are contracted, e.g. [32] has "464–65" where "464–465" is expected. I believe contractions are deprecated, but in any case they impede readability so please expand all of them.  Done I believe all instances of this have been dealt with

• Ref [26] suggests it was written or published by someone called "A history of child protection" ... suggest you provide author, date, and publisher.  Done

• Ref [36] needs its publisher.  Done

• Ref [37] needs its publisher, and the title of the encyclopedia entry ("Nonconformism in the Victorian Era", or whatever) rather than just a page number.  Done

• Ref [88] seems to be quite incomplete (are you in fact citing Ronald Fisher rather than Malthus?). We need enough information for a reader to be able to retrieve the source.  Done This one has been taken out now as it wasn't really citing text of much value.

• Ref [101] Atterbury-2012 doesn't lead anywhere; and since all the other refs are defined immediately, not in a separate list, it'd be best if this one was, too.

• Ref [104] needs its publisher. Done

• Ref [106] seems to be two refs run together? Neither of them provide page numbers.

• Ref [107] needs its publisher. Done

• Ref [110] gives first a single page number (p. 12) and then names a chapter: which is one page long? Rothfels is given as the book's author so how come Fudge is the author too?

• Rothfels is the editor.

• Ref [114] is missing the publisher (Palgrave Macmillan) and the page number(s).

• Ref [117] is missing the page number(s).

• A new ref "[3]" has just been added during this GAN process, without prompting from this GAN; it is to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a weak tertiary source. Instability is a valid reason for failing a GAN (criterion 5). If the new material is essential then it should be cited to a reliable secondary source, such as an academic journal article or history textbook by a known scholar or historian. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't realise their were quality issues with encyclopedia Britannica.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.