Talk:Joseph Sprigg/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 17:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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

---

West Virginian Comments below,

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, 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):

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:

Issues

• It is unecessary to put citations like this: "bbbbbb.[1] cccccc, ddddddd.[1]"
• Dates shouldn't use "th" at the end
• Some of the sources require a subscription, please not that with a template.
• Four citations for one point seems excessive.

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Tomandjerry211 (alt), all of these issues have been addressed. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments. Thank you again for the review! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Passing, well done!--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Tomandjerry211 (alt), thank you tremendously for taking the time to engage in this very thoughtful review! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)