Talk:Remember not, Lord, our offences/GA1
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 00:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: ColonelHenry (talk)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
- a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Check for WP:LEAD:
|
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT: Done
|
Done
Check for WP:WTW: Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT: Done
|
Done
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)
Done
Check for WP:RS: Done A rough check with other FAs: Duino Elegies, A Song for Simeon
|
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
A rough checked with other FAs: Duino Elegies, A Song for Simeon & Google Books e.g. The Book of common prayer: its history and contents By Coleman Ivens
|
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (PD)
Images:
|
---|
Done
6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA. Thanks, ColonelHenry, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles.
Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)