Talk:Steep Holm/GA1

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Onel5969 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 15:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Will take a day or two to finish. Please be patient.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    No copyvio issue. There are some grammar issues throughout the article, particularly in the history section, especially with run-on and awkward sentences. I'll point out some - Prehistoric: the 4th and 5th sentences in the 2nd paragraph; Religious foundations: 1st, 8th, 9th sentences; Manorial, sentences 2, 4, 7, 2nd paragraph, sentences 1, 3,
I have attempted to improve these.— Rod talk 15:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi Rodw - there are still quite a few throughout the article. I went in to the sections I mentioned and made some corrections. This is really the only issue I still see. Very nice job so far. Onel5969 TT me 01:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I have been through and made a few more grammar changes. Are there other "run-on and awkward sentences" that I'm not spotting?— Rod talk 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi Rodw - There are a couple throughout (the World wars section) comes to mind. But I don't think enough to keep this from GA. You might want to take one more look. Onel5969 TT me 16:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
    Lead is a good summary of the article, good layout.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    Well referenced. Couple of places that might be cases of WP:CITEKILL (e.g. 2nd paragraph in Palmerston Fort - consider of moving some to an "External links" section)
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
    Everything is well sourced.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    Covers the island and all its aspects.
    B. Focused (see summary style):  
    No section goes into too much depth, yet each section adequately covers its subject.
  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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    All images are public domain or have the appropriate CC license
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall: pass
    Pass or Fail: