Talk:1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 17:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Most of your prose is good, but the lede has odd sentence construction. I suggest reading some ledes in other articles and write yours somewhat like those

   Thanks for reviewing. Could you be a little more specific on this point? Having written doezens of FAs and GAs I've tried to write this lead in similar manner but perhaps there's something I'm missing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

   I don't usually see opening sentences that put the date last. Also on the third sentence you should get rid of the "to be" before "followed". Besides that It looks fine. Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 04:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

   Ah, thanks -- yep, fair enough, changed those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

   Great. I think it can pass now. Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 16:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm going to hold this article for now until the lede gets fixed.

   It can pass now.