Talk:H. Rex Lee/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 09:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Review

As this is the oldest nomination, I'll take it on. I am interested in politics, which helps. I'll be using the basic criteria below as a checklist and hope to provide the review soon. Please contact me if there is anything I should know about the article that might influence the review. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation. Not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible. Not applicable.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright. Not applicable.

This is looking good. I've had to do a certain amount of copyediting to tidy things up but nothing major. The only thing outstanding is request for an additional citation at the end of a sentence containing quotes. I'm placing the article on hold for now and, if the remaining citation can be provided fairly soon, I'll be happy to pass this. It's interesting, concise, well written and informative. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well, I was just about to fail this because of no response but I decided to try and find the necessary source myself and, guess what, the content including quotation is in the same article as that in the next sentence. Problem solved and I can instead now pass the article, which I'm very pleased to do. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)