Talk:Romney's House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HeyJude70 (talk · contribs) 14:34, 10 January 2017 (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.	Well-written, formal language used.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Short, sharp lead section (should information about raid be added?), layout is finely constructed.
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).	(See point 1 of Discussion)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Whole article is written directly about the topic, and does not roam into details of the owner's life or story.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See above.
	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.	No edit wars.
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.	Images are confirmed to be in free use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is my review, however I am new to this process and would like to hear any opposing arguments or points in the discussion. Please see below for any points to be made in discussion. Edit: In conclusion: I find this article to be worth of a Good Article review. It follows the criteria, and as per the un-replied-to-discussion nobody has any point to make against the single reference that I could find any issue with. I pronounce this article worthy of a Good Article!

Discussion

As in reference from above:

• 1 - Source 6 (used twice) is stated simply as 'Cherry and Pevsner 1999, p. 222.'. This does not provide adequate details of the source. However, all other sources used are verifiable and reliable.

ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)