Talk:Peter III (cat)/GA1

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: Voorts (talk · contribs) 22:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

First assessment

Review forthcoming. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

​First assessment completed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Completed copy edit of article.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Added some archive URLs and fixed some cites.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   There are a three failed verifications:

   • The source cited for the proposition that Peter II died in Whitehall does not state that he died in Whitehall.
   • "Peter attracted widespread public attention following an appearance on the BBC current affairs programme Tonight in 1958" – the source cited says only that Peter "became somewhat of a celebrity, appearing on the BBC in 1958 and pictured in newspapers and magazine, including October 1962's 'Woman's Realm'", not that he appeared on Tonight, nor that he attracted "widespread public attention" because of his appearance on the BBC, which is what the sentence as written currently implies.
   • The quote about the note accompanying Peter's coffin requires a cite. The sources that were previously at the end of the sentence before the copy edit did not include that quote.

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Used Earwig's tool.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Checked edit history and talk page.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   The fair use rationales for the two images appear to be sufficient, but the funeral photo should be attributed to the Associated Press per the captions contained in several of the sources cited in the article.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   If you're able to visit The National Archives, you might be interested in seeing if you can find any interesting public domain photographs (for this and other Chief Mouser articles) in this file.

@Voorts All done now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

A pleasure working with you once again. I think a description of the funeral procession would be a great DYK nomination. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the failed verifications; me being an idiot, putting the refs in the wrong place. Cheers pal. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

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.