Talk:Ned Lamont/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 15:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Grammarxxx. I have completed the GA review and have done some copy edits too, I hope you don't mind. Everything seems to be in place for a Pass:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   Prose, grammar, punctuation, and spelling are all good to go.

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   • I think the 2010 Gubernatorial campaign section is pretty short, and could be combined with the Post-election activities section as the second paragraph. I have gone ahead and done this. Please feel free to revert if you think it's not working.

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   All material is sourced to high-quality sources. Some links were dead or redirecting to places where the desired content was not residing, so I fixed them using the Wayback Machine. Spot checks revealed no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing. Citation templates are effectively used throughout, with no technical errors found.

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   The article is a little short, but it covers all the main points. Google searching does not reveal any missing major points.

   B. Remains focused:

3. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images are properly licensed.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: {{GAList/check|}y}

   Two suitable-captioned images are present.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The article passes to GA. Remember for the future: you can check the status of urls using the Checklinks tool to ensure that the links are still going to the desired content and are not dead. Most dead links can be resolved using the Wayback Machine. Best wishes and congratulations, -- Diannaa (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)