# Talk:Wilfrid Eggleston

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wilfrid Eggleston/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 6, 2016, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
Perhaps consider adding an infobox to bring out key article info in a quick fashion for our readers?
Copyvio Detector shows no problems here - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Wilfrid+Eggleston&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0 - good job here!
Early life sect - suggest expand, if possible, but at least break apart into two paragraphs.
Career sect - recommend breaking some of the larger paragraphs apart into smaller paragraphs, for increased ease of reader flow for our readers.
Honours, recognition and death - this sect is confusing and sort of could have better chronological order and presentation. Could the sect be expanded a bit more, as well? Please try to fix the timeline presentation in that sect, as now it stands it is out of order.
2. Verifiable?: As there's not too many, please increase article posterity for future verification by archiving all links via archiveurl and archivedate fields to citations with the Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive.
3. Broad in coverage?: Lede intro sect should be expanded a bit more, perhaps to 3 paragraphs, to fully function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Stable? Upon my inspection of article edit history and article talk page history, article is stable. No outstanding issues here.
6. Images?: Please move this image to Wikimedia Commons -- File:OrionAlberta.jpg you can see Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for more help. Also please standardize this image page with commons:Template:Information, once it is located at Wikimedia Commons.
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up, I'll do my best to address your suggestions. I would like to add that although I will do my utmost, significant expansion may be tricky given the lack of verifiable sources available online. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

4. Infobox added.
6. Broken down, expanded.
7. Broken down.
8. Chronology amended, expanded.

2. Verifiable?:

Archived using WebCite service.
Note: The reference entitled Archives Search - Library and Archives Canada won't process for some reason. Let me know if this is a major issue.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Lede expanded.

6. Images?:

Uploaded to commons and added description.

I hope this goes a way to passing this article. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done, passed as GA. Thanks for being so responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Wilfrid Eggleston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2004-05/895
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britannica.com/topic/Imperial-Economic-Conference
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/wilfrid-eggleston/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/federal/rowell.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://hpcanpub.mcmaster.ca/case-study/censorship-canada
Corrected formatting/usage for http://writersguild.ca/programs-services/awards/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uleth.ca/lib/donations/display.asp?FileID=2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lituanus.org/1999/99_3_03.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abebooks.com/LYRICS-MAGDALENA-WILFRID-EGGLESTON-Anne-Ed/109908042/bd
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.erudit.org/revue/is/2008/v28/n2/029956ar.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anne-eggleston-emc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)