Talk:The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I grow old and forgetful. A few sentences into this excellent article I realised I had read it before – when it was at peer review. I don't think having been a peer reviewer inhibits me from reviewing the article for GAN, and therefore...

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Unarguably good, in my view, and distinctly an article rather than a list. A delight to revisit (though "The Speckled Band" may keep me awake tonight). Now then, I am supposed to prod a recipient of a GA promotion into reviewing someone else's nomination from the long list of candidates: what comes around goes around you know, so pray ponder, Harrias and wade in if you can. Tim riley talk 19:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)