Talk:Obadiah Short/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TerribleTy2727 (talk · contribs) 13:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Gonna be reviewing this over the next few days.

Alright. Having read through the article four times now, I think I can summarize the major issues with it.

Before I get into the issues though, let me talk about what worked. A whole lot. It's illustrated, broad in coverage.

The main problem is the grammar. Although it should be added that there are 6 paintings, all grouped up fairly awkwardly. Is every single one of them really necessary?

The amount of run-on sentences is ridiculous and beyond that, the grammar is just so strange in certain areas. For example, in the introduction: "the stately home of the Earl of Leicester, who treated him with kindness and permitted him to study the paintings there."

It sounds like it came out of the KJV bible. Frankly, that entire section of the introduction is very weirdly worded. It even sounds like trivia at times. This is all over the article. A response would be appreciated. TerribleTy2727 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Examples

His accurate depictions of Norwich, along with his childhood memories, written many years later under the title Recollections, have provided modern historians with a valuable record of the city at the start of the nineteenth century.

Run on. This is in... A lot of the article.

Born of parents from a poor background, he was orphaned in 1809 when his father was killed at the Battle of Corunna and his mother, who was a camp follower with the army, fell sick and died in Lisbon the same year.

Another run on.

After 1829 he began produce drawings of local

Produce? I keep catching major issues like this. Why hasn't this been copy-edited? On top of that, the structure of that whole paragraph is very, very odd.

Norwich, where he lived all his life,

Is the "where he lived all his life" really necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerribleTy2727 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Overall

This article desperately needs a copy edit. The grammar is horrific. The sentence and paragraph structure is painful. I think this is a long way from GA status, in terms of writing.

Conclusion

Seeing as how the nominator hasn't responded, I'm simply going to fail the article.

Fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerribleTy2727 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hi there, thanks for your comments, TerribleTy2727. I have addressed all the issues you highlighted above, as well as those you added on my talk page. I'm still not sure if you're interested in reopening the review. If you are, please continue the review below this comment, and I will respond to your suggestions. Thanks, Amitchell125 16:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I'm on vacation with my family, and I simply don't have the time to re-review the article. However, I would recommend sending this to the GOCE before renomination. The article could still use a bit of clean-up. Reading through it, I noticed many grammatical errors and sentences that need clarification. TerribleTy2727 (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• No worries, thanks for letting me know. Amitchell125 04:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)