Talk:Charles Pearson/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Comments:

  1. The lead of the article is too short. Per WP:LEAD, it needs to be expanded to summarize the article.
  2. In first sentence of "City career and campaigning" section, "as well" is redundant.
  3. The capitalization for "City board of health" looks awkward. Is that how it should be?
    • In this case, and the two at 8 and 9 below, "the City" is used to indicate the City of London (a proper name) which is distinct from the city of London. Used this way "the City" is always capitalised. I haven't capitalised board of health because that is a general term. --DavidCane (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Despite his comfortable upbringing and his high social status": remove second "his".
  5. The sentence "Pearson was in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of England, he opposed capital punishment, and he supported universal suffrage and electoral reform to balance the sizes of parliamentary constituencies." sounds choppy and needs to be rephrased.
    • I've broken the sentence into two. How's that? --DavidCane (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Liberal Member of Parliament": Should not have two wikilinked terms together.
  7. In sentence "In 1846, Pearson proposed with the support of the City Corporation a central railway station for London located in Farringdon and estimated to cost £1 million (approximately £69.3 million today).", change "and" to "that was".
  8. "City workers": I believe city should be in lowercase unless it is a formal title.
    • See comment against item 3 above as to why this should be capitalised. --DavidCane (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "the City", in referring to London, should be in lowercase.
    • See comment against item 3 above as to why this should be capitalised. --DavidCane (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing the article on hold. Dough4872 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good now, so I will pass it. Dough4872 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]