Talk:Raymond Pace Alexander/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LuisVilla (talk · contribs) 04:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Strong, clear writing and organization.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Solid.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Fn. 16 (the Sphinx) does not seem to support the claim that this was a "first"? Fn. 33 (Murray) does not seem to support the sentence - doesn't mention Alexander at all? (Still reviewing; have made it to the Trenton Six.)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Still reviewing this. Nothing glaring so far.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Passes both the eye test and automated tests look solid.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

@LuisVilla: are you still reviewing this? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)