Talk:College of Arms/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Beginning critical read-through. A few typos corrected on first read-through, which please check. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on! Sodacan (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is any issue concerning the citations or the sources (anything content-wise) please let me know I have all the texts with me and is more than willing to help. I won't comment on the issue below just yet, as my position concerning it should be obvious :) Thanks again, Sodacan (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for a second opinion

This article is, IMO, impeccable in its content, and is well written, but it is enormously long. The WP guidelines (Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb) say that articles with prose more than 100KB in size "almost certainly need to be divided"; this article passes that limit. The GA criteria don't, as far as I can see, say that extreme length is a bar to promotion. If it were up at FAC I have no doubt whatever that there would be calls for the history and function sections to be hived off into separate articles with a shorter summary on the main page (as has been done for later sections of the present article). But does its length disqualify it for GA? I hope not, as it is a magnificent piece of work. Advice earnestly sought. Tim riley (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Second opinion: As far as I know there are no special rules applying to the lengths of GAs or FAs; the length recommendations in MOS apply to all articles. This article's size is 105kb and the wordcount is 9178; large but not by any means unprecedented; Michael Jackson runs to 208kb and 13496 words, Nikita Khrushchev is 124kb and 13974. Yes, these are FAs, but Jacko had 9300 words when it was GA. So I would not classify College of Arms as "extreme" length. I do wonder, if it is "a magnificent piece of work" (which I have no reason to doubt), whether GAN is its best destination, or whether a peer review followed by FAC would be more appropriate? That, of course, is the nominator's decision. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Many thanks to Brianboulton for that. I am much relieved. I shall give the article a last read-through tomorrow, before observing the GA promotion formalities. Tim riley (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A most interesting, and certainly comprehensive article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

I wondered about "hefty" for the sentence of the chap in the pillory, but that's of no consequence.

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

I was surprised that the cigarette card from the 1930s is in the public domain, but no doubt those who run Commons know what they're doing.

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The research that has gone into this article is formidable, and I congratulate the nominator most warmly. I echo Brianboulton's point, above, that there seems every reason to consider following the FAC route at some point. – Tim riley (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)