Talk:William Cragh/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Initial comments
editThis looks to be a good article. I will now review the article in more depth. At this point I will be mostly highlighting "problems", if any; so if I don't have much to say about a particular section, that probably means that I consider to be compliant (or I fixed any minor "errors" and so did not need to highlight them here). Pyrotec (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- 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:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on finding a "niche" subject and bringing it up to GA. Pyrotec (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)