Talk:William Tuke

William Tuke has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 28, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal William Tuke is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Disability

William Tuke is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ssaha17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Did You Know? Nomination[edit]

William Tuke ( Back to T:TDYK Article history ) Status: expanded author: Ssaha17 ... that "William Tuke's approaches to mental health helped shape more humane and psychology-based methods of treating mental disorders"? Comment: Nominated by emarti84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarti84 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Tuke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 04:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.	I've added a few tags where things aren't entirely clear. I'm aware that Quakers and Friends refer to the same group, but I'm not sure the average reader will. A few other places are vague, and "became famous around the world" needs a specific citation or else is puffery. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] Tags remedied. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section doesn't mention The Retreat by name; the article suggests that it's important enough to his life that it should be mentioned. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] Lead expanded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Are there any pictures of The Retreat that would be suitable for the article? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] Picture added. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Some work that needs to be done, but no serious issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page nominator has been in-active since April, so I'm looking at doing these fixes myself. If they are substantial enough, I'll relist the GA nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to all my critiques. I'd like at least one other contributor to comment here before approving this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read over the article, if there is going to be any issue, it would be with the sources or possibly the scope. However the article reads well and is free from errors, and it would appear everything is sourced, although I have only superficially examined the sources; and the scope is complete from my point of view given that I am reasonably knowledgeable but not an expert on the subject. It has been noted by spcoony that the lead is a bit short, and an extra paragraph there could be an improvement. Dysklyver 22:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

It is kind of power~enwiki to take the article in hand in the unusual circumstances. Unlike Dysklyver I have no knowledge at all of the subject, and these observations are from the layman's point of view:

Lead: two noticeably odd decisions about what to link: I don't think anyone will ever need to click away from this page to find out what "businessman" means, but on the other hand a link to "abolitionist" would be helpful to many, I feel.
The Retreat: the article is mainly in BrE (rightly, given its subject) but a "favor" has crept into this section.
Other work: I boggle a bit at the statement that Tuke attended all the meetings of the Bible Society. Unless there's a very clear source for such a claim, I think it would be safer to say he attended them regularly.

Those would be my only quibbles on the writing. If I were assessing the GAN (and I've done a fair few over the years) I'd rate the prose as acceptable for GA. I would, though, want to look closely at the sourcing. References 1 a-f seem to me too vague as they stand: page numbers are missing, making it hard to verify the statements attributed to the book in question. The link to the Amazon site is of no use at all, in my view. The two statements for which the ODNB is cited are faithful to the source, but the citation does not make it clear that it is a subscription site, and I think it ought to. I hope these few comments are helpful. Tim riley talk 11:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the suggested changes (with the exception of adding page numbers, which I am incapable of doing). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire situation here is unorthodox; I plan to pass this to GA status in 48 hours unless somebody comments otherwise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]