Talk:E. T. Whittaker/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Claiming this one. Article is reasonably long, so this may take a while. On the other hand, it looks in good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article meets GA requirements. If you want to take it to FA, ping me for a list of additional items.

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:

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:

   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:

I made a series of minor changes. Revert anything you're unhappy with:

• Added the {{postnominals}} template
• Removed the academic postnominals per MOS:POSTNOM: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead.
• Added some ref=none cards to suppress some warnings generated by scripts I run.
• Removed the worlcat urls, which are covered by the oclc cards
• More controversially, I removed the summary paragraph of "Life". It is unnecessary as there is a summary in the lead and all the details are the article, and was unsourced (although the sources could be found elsewhere in the article)
• Fixed typos: "vigor", "ahs"
• added some commas.
• Fixed the Edinburgh link and added the page number. Other links look okay.
• The claim that he received the Tyson Medal for Mathematics and Astronomy in 1895 was unsourced. Corrected the date and added a source.
• Aside: the fact that he was second wrangler had me wondering who was first. It was Thomas John I'Anson Bromwich.
• Despite what the previous reviewer said, "Bibliography" is usually used for books by the subject. But meh.

Passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)