Talk:Craig Bellamy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 19:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: apologies for the delay - the article is rather long. Should be done tomorrow though. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Lead sufficiently covers the article. Written immaculately - I only found one typo, and those can't be avoided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   A large number of suitable references. The ones I checked clearly mentioned the information written by author.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Stays focused and covers pretty much everything.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Currently stable. Edit war on 20 June 2019 - appears to have been resolved.

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

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

   Suitable used with good captions. Appropriate credit given to author. Could do with a few more images, but sufficient for criteria.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very well written, sufficiently verified covering the player's career. Well done!