Talk:Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found and fixed two. Also fixed two broken ref links in the references section.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is reasonably well written. I would suggest that if you wish to take this further, to WP:FAC, you brush it up to become excellently well written. Some of the sentences verge on the over-long, they might be better broken up and made plainer.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   On-line sources check out. Assume good faith for off-line, all appear reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Appropriately used, tagged and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Fine. I find that this article satisfactorily meets the GA criteria. The prose could be improved but it is "reasonably well written". Passing as GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Buchraeumer (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! - PKM (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)