Talk:History of English cricket (1726–1750)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: ReturnDuane (talk · contribs) 13:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 02:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, expect the initial remarks soon! Vestrian24Bio 02:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReturnDuane: you have made only 0.2% contribution to this article, will you be willing to address any concerns raised during the review...? otherwise, I will have to fail this nomination. Vestrian24Bio 02:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Vestrian24Bio. The two IP editors last August were both me, before I opened an account here. One IP address was in Ireland, where I live, the other in GB, where I work. I have access to all the sources and so, yes, I can answer any questions raised. Thank you for offering to do the review. I should be able to look in every day for the next two or three weeks. ReturnDuane (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will continue the review. Vestrian24Bio 03:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@ReturnDuane:

EARWIG shows 29.1% - violations unlikely.
According to link-dispenser,
- 7 refs need archive links.
References are looking good!
Sidebar should be placed above the image.

Vestrian24Bio 03:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've removed the sidebar which I really disliked. It added nothing of value, even when limited to history only.

The EARWIG results are interesting but its findings tend to be text being directly quoted. I notice it has highlighted Prince of Wales, for example, so it is altogether too rigorous. I'll be happy to reword any text or quotes that you personally may be dubious about, but I don't believe there are any violations in the strict sense of WP:COPYVIO.

Are archive links necessary as I think the original links are directly accessible?

Actually, I think this would be a good idea for a couple of them at least, so I'm closing them off. All done. ReturnDuane (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EARWIG percentage is just a procedural thing, it should be taken to consideration only when its 75+, otherwise it's good. Vestrian24Bio 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of references are from books which are all reputable sources. I can't remember if I added any new references back in August, but I checked the existing references (content, page numbers, relevance, etc.) for validation.

Thanks again. ReturnDuane (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed