Talk:Cerne Abbas Giant/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 17:13, 12 January 2013 (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.	Some small fixes made.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: ok. Layout: ok. Weasel: not an issue. Fiction: n/a. List: n/a.
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.	Good coverage.
	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).	No problem.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No sign of it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good focus. Reasonable detail in each section.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No sign of bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent editwarring.
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 fine, checked at Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Interesting images both photos and antiquarian.
	7. Overall assessment.	Enjoyable article, just the right amount, well-researched with interesting details and fine photos.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to go through the article, I know how time consuming it is. Sorry for not replying early, but have been rather busy with the day job. Much appreciated, and thanks again. --Iantresman (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)