Talk:Steep Holm/GA1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Onel5969 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 15:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Will take a day or two to finish. Please be patient.
- 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,
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- I have attempted to improve these.— Rod talk 15:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have attempted to improve these.— Rod talk 15:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- 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.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall: pass
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail: