Talk:Harold H. Piffard/GA1

GA Review

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 12:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again! Piffard seems like quite the eccentric, excited to review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Totally bonkers. Thanks for taking him on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2023 (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.	Free of typos and perfectly clear.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead nicely summarizes the article, no lists present. Remove "noted" in The cameraman noted that Piffard still... per MOS:SAID. Done. Also, I think the short description should contain his year of birth and death. Added. All good now. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
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.	References section contains proper citations.
	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).	Citations are from reliable sources; most are from history websites (e.g. The Victorian Web) or local journals (e.g. Brentford & Chiswick Local History Journal).
	2c. it contains no original research.	All claims are well-cited.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig is showing a large amount of plagiarism from this listing of a Piffard painting on an art retailer's site. Whether it is actually plagiarized from here I'm conflicted about; looking through the edit history, most of the current personal life section was written in this edit on January 24, 2023. There's no date on the retailer's site, and Wayback hasn't archived it. I see no other instances of plagiarism, but I'm unsure what's happening here. Chiswick Chap, thoughts? They've certainly copied from us, given the way it begins "Harold Hume Piffard (10 August 1867 – 17 January 1939) was a British ..." (shouts "Wikipedia style!"). More, we built up that text in stages, not all at once. Ok, thanks for clarifying that for me. No copyvios/plagiarism present.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All good here; the article is only 970 words.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused; the personal life section nicely summarizes his life.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars since creation.
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.	All images are appropriately tagged, most being PD or from the British Library and one being non-free use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There's 11 images under "Painter", five under "Illustrator", and six under "Example of a full set of illustrations". These images serve as a gallery to the different kinds of art Piffard did, so I think it makes sense to have that many. All are captioned appropriately.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is all set! What an eccentric individual, definitely lots of possibilities for DYK. Well done! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.