Talk:John Lade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article John Lade was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 3, 2008.
April 15, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

Half done. Rest tomorrow. Relata refero (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking longer than expected. The problem is that everything's so unbelievable that I'm having to reference every line. Relata refero (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wrong word

I don't think you can call him a protégé of SJ, as in the lead. The word implies someone who is sponsored in some field, whether general society of a particular subject. Based on the text of the article--which matches my own knowledge of the subject & the general understanding --& I think I've read everything published by SJ, and most of Boswell, and much of the surrounding figures, including Burney's diary,-- SJ had a well-justified contempt for him. How about "in his youth, an associate of SJ's circle" .

Much rather discuss this than political propaganda of any variety. DGG (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Fail

Unfortunately, this article does not meet the Good Article criteria at this time. In terms of the criteria, my assessment is as follows:

  1. Well-written: Not yet. This article needs some fairly serious copyediting for both tone and writing conventions. There are quite a few problems with punctuation and grammar that stand out. The article also does not comply with the Manual of Style in terms of placement of references, as the MOS states that they should come after punctuation. Other problems that come to mind easily are the inappropriate bolding of "Letitia" in the lead and the linking of "Four in Hand Club" to a method of tying a tie. These are just examples, however, and I believe copyediting is important before renominating.
  2. Accurate and verifiable: Not yet. Quite a few statements are unsourced. In addition, the print sources lack the necessary information (publisher, date, ISBN).
  3. Neutral point of view: Not yet. Much of the article seems to be praising Lade (particularly the "In society") section. Point of view terms are found throughout the article.
  4. Comprehensive: Close, but not yet. Some things could be explained more thoroughly. Did he compete as a driver? If so, how did he do? What was the club he founded (what did they do?)? Are numbers available for his famous debts? How did he die?
  5. Stable: Yes.
  6. Illustrated appropriately: Yes.

The article needs some copyediting, sourcing, and preferably a peer review to check for neutrality and good writing style. I am failing it for now, and I urge you to renominate it after taking these steps. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)