Talk:Henry James Nicholas/GA1

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Victuallers in topic painting

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply


Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Additional comments by Lingzhi

edit

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

  • First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
  • On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
  • Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Review

edit
Nice work in overall. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, many thanks for taking the time to review and provide your feedback on this article. I believe that I have dealt with your comments. Thanks again, Zawed (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

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):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

painting

edit

copy of painting of him loaded to commons Victuallers (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply