Talk:Bridgwater and Taunton Canal/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   While there is extensive debate on the talk page concerning the use of {{convert}}, the accuracy and look of the template gives a consistent look, that the manual conversions fail to do; for instance if the input is 120, then that presumes an accuracy of two digits, not three. If more accuracy is wanted, this can be done by tweaking the sigfig= syntax in the template.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   All matters check good, so the article is passed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)