Talk:Robert P. Letcher/GA1

GA Review

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

And I'll take this one on too! Full review up shortly... Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Governor section, near the end, it says "Letcher's friends withdrew his name". The wording "Letcher's friends" sounds odd to me - what did the fact that they were his friends have to do with it?

• The source says "friends", but I think the implication is "supporters". I have changed the prose to reflect this.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • I added a fact tag in one place that needs a reference - especially important because you're quoting someone.

• I made a bad assumption that this was common knowledge, and was counting on the linked article to back that up. Unfortunately, the linked article doesn't cite any sources! I've found and added an appropriate source and cite.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Just one issue with prose and one place that needs a reference, so I am placing this review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Thanks as always for all your work reviewing GAs. Let me know if there are any other concerns that need to be addressed. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Thanks for the changes and the, as always, prompt response. Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)