Talk:William Garrow/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Article is a pleasure to read

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   everything seems good here

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   yes

   C. No original research:

   yes

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   yes

   B. Focused:

   yes

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   good good

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   although large expansion by nominator was recent seems stable in regards vandalism

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   excellent use of PD images

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

   all good here

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   See my overall comments, but in general an excellent article that I expect could move to featured article review without much difficulty

Second opinion: this reviewer is requesting another editor's input on the article. Ajbpearce (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RE MoS compliance; there's no requirement that the lead by directly sourced, the rule is that it's either always sourced or never sourced, unless quotes are involved. Since this contains no quotes, and my preference is always not to source the lead, I have not done so. Thank you for your other comments; I am thinking of FAC at some point. Ironholds (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ironholds here. As everything is sourced more deeply in the article's body, duplicating references would not serve much of a purpose in terms of verifiability. There is nothing overly controversial that requires a double citation, or any quotes, so this method should be fine. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I am sure it is not meant for a review to be more useful to the reviewer than the reviewed article but i guess ironholds vastly greater experience that was perhaps inevitable, I have added persondata to the article and cleared it as a GAAjbpearce (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)