Talk:Pedra Branca dispute/GA1

GA review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A well written and thorough treatment of the subject.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The article is clearly written and I found no significant problems with the prose.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   The lead may be somewhat on the long side, per Wikipedia:LENGTH. It also doesn't cover the Reactions section. But overall the article appears to satisfy the MoS criteria.

   Comment: According to "Wikipedia:Lead section#Length", an article with more than 30,000 characters should have a lead section that is about three to four paragraphs long. However, given the content of this article, I think five paragraphs is not excessive. I've removed some text and added a sentence at the end with information from the "Reactions" section. — JackLee, 17:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Does note 3 apply to the second paragraph of "Dispute"? Otherwise the citation requirement seems well covered.

   Fixed: No, it doesn't. I've added a reference. — JackLee, 17:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   PedraBranca-MiddleRocks-labelled.jpg doesn't appear to be low resolution, a requirement for Fair Use. It is only slightly reduced in dimensions and file size, from 104 kb to 88 kb, and the quality is comparable to the original. Could you try scaling it down further, if this is possible while keeping the text legible? Otherwise the images meet the GA criteria.

   Fixed: I've reduced the size of the image and the resolution from 96 to 72 pixels per inch. — JackLee, 17:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The issues should be relatively easy to address. I'll hold it open for a week. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'm currently out of my home country and didn't have Internet access over the weekend, but managed to work on the aspects of the article today. Will be back home on Wednesday, 17 December. I think the article is ready for your further review. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am please to promote this article to GA status.—RJH (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)