Talk:Tessie Reynolds/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 05:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues noted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Well, there's really just one section beyond the lead. Considering.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Referenced appropriately, but the format of the refs bothers me.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issues noted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	One issue noted below re: her intent in wearing practical dress.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Only hit in Earwig's is for an online direct quote appropriately cited in the article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	One suspects the article is quite comprehensive, actually.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Nothing imbalanced noted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues noted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	PD
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine. One picture is appropriate for this size article. I like the display size selected, too.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing per improvements.

Initial read-through

• "The publicity traveled as far as America,[11] and the outfit was promoted by proponents of Victorian dress reform,[5] as Reynolds clearly intended." That last clause needs a citation--I can't tell if the citation for the next sentence covers it, as it does not appear to be online.

  the source says "... Tessie wore her rational costume not simply as a functional costume on that September day, but in fact as publicity and as a deliberate public endorsement for rational dress for women.", which I think covers it. Worm^TT(talk)

• There are five separate citations to the Barlow article, apparently one per page. Is that really the best way to present it? It seems almost to be artificially inflating the reference count, which is unnecessary, or distracting from the fact that nearly all the details of the subject's life appear to have come from this one source.

  That makes sense. I was experimenting with sfn at the time, and though I didn't use the template there, I was getting used to citing specific pages. That said, it's clearly not useful here, so I've moved it to one. Worm^TT(talk)

• Likewise, there are two separate references to the Brighton page about Ms. Barlow's work.

  That was just me using the same source twice and not realising! Worm^TT(talk)

• "love letters" is probably overlinked.

  Is it? I can only see one link... Worm^TT(talk)

Overall, prose is excellent, if British. (I had to look up 'cater for' to verify it was a correct UKism) I'll await your response to the three areas I've identified, and will place the article on hold in the mean time. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jclemens, glad you enjoyed the article, and I really appreciate the positive comment about the prose - an area I'm always concerned about. Hopefully that covers all your concerns, let me know if you spot anything else. Worm^TT(talk) 13:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

And thank you for addressing the matters promptly once you got back. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)