Talk:Westminster Assembly/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is plainly of GA quality, and to my layman's eye looks well worth putting up for FAC in due course. A few minor points you may like to consider before I observe the present formalities:

• There are a few stray duplicate links (Church of Scotland linked twice in the lead; continental Reformed, Book of Common Prayer, and Long Parliament all linked twice in the main text. There are also some links that seem to me excessive (a matter of judgement, I admit): Scots, London, the Continent, chairman, processed, fasting, extemporaneous.
• The word "however" appears eighteen times in the article (three times in the lead). More often than not it is an unnecessary word, and one's prose can be strengthened by removing it. If I were you, I'd conduct an audit of howevers and cut severely.
• Singular or plural?
  • "The Assembly would spend a quarter of its full sessions", " the Assembly was reticent" but "The Assembly published a protest, provoking the Commons to charge them with breach of privilege".
• Calling the assembly
  • "The start of the war lent support to the cause of the Assembly in Parliament, because holding it would convince the Scots that Parliament was serious about reforming the church and induce them to come to their aid." – I got lost during this sentence and ended up unsure who the "their" were. The only plural noun in the sentence is "Scots", but I think they are the ones supposed to be doing the aiding.
• Revising the Thirty-Nine Articles
  • I don't know that "room" is quite the word for the nave of the Abbey.
• ISBNs
  • We are asked to standardise (though I see you prefer the Oxonian "–ize") on 13-digit ISBNs, and there are a few 10-digit ones in the bibliography. I don't regard it as a sticking point for GA, but if you do go on, as I hope you will, to FAC you'll need to make them all 13-digit ones. There is a handy tool here.

That's my meagre harvest of gleanings. I shan't bother putting the review formally on hold for such trifling quibbles. Over to you and we can then perform the ceremony. – Tim riley talk 18:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Your comments were very helpful, especially the bit about however. I think I've addressed everything you mentioned, please let me know if you have any other suggestions.--JFH (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   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.

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

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This is a top-notch article. On to FAC, I hope, and, if so, please ping me when you get there. Tim riley talk 07:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Will do, though I may wait a few weeks due to real life busyness. --JFH (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)