# Talk:Thomas Edward Knowles Stansfield

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Edward Knowles Stansfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 18:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I propose to take on this review and will study the article in detail in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


### First reading
In general, this article is well written and well referenced. I usually look at the lead last, so as to check whether it is a good summary of the rest of the article.

"he had a brother, William Walker Stansfield" - it is not clear who "he" refers to here.
In fact the first sentence in this section is too long and complex and should be divided.
"The family were ..." - "Family" is a singular noun and so the verbs in this sentence need to be in the singular.
"The post-war years" - Having not previously mentioned a war, you need to specify which one you are referring to.
"The post-war years and their changes frustrated him, spurring his retirement." - So when did he retire?
Returning now to the lead, it seems to be a good summary of the main text and in fact mentions the date of retirement.
It would be nice to have an image of him, is there nothing available?
That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on this review. I am away on holiday until Monday but I will address all of your comments before the week deadline. Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC).
There's no rush. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thanks for your patience, I believe I have corrected all of these issues now; I also noticed a couple of formatting errors in the references which I've amended. The one issue you bring up which I cannot address is the lack of photograph; regrettably, I have found none. Thank you once again for your review; if any more action is required, do let me know. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC).


### GA criteria
The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout. 
The article uses a number of reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research. 
The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed. 
The article is neutral. 
The article was created in April 2017 by the nominator and is stable. 
No images are available. 
Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria.  Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for carrying out the review. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC).