Talk:Warlugulong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I wondered if the artcile would benefit from the use of {{Infobox painting}}? This is not a GA requirement.

   In the section The painting two successive sentences start with "While". It would be better to avoid this.

   ...it was auctioned by Sotheby's... Was this in London or New York? Or in Australia?

   Otherwise, prose is fine and meets MoS standards.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Online sources check out and are reliable. I found no evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   One detail is missing. What medium is the painting in?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   One image used with a suitable rationale and caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for addressing these issues so quickly. I am happy to list this as a good article, congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)