Talk:2019 British prorogation controversy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk · contribs) 17:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PoliceSheep99 I'm happy to review. Let me just give it a read through. Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How I review is go through section by section, note my comments and various suggestions. I'll also make minor edits if I see spelling errors etc.

Intro

'in the end' felt a little informal, so I changed it to 'following political opposition'
No other issues

Main body

Background

Done very well. No issues here.

Remainder

The remainder is all written well.
I suggest that you add in some more subheadings (under the main headings). This should allow for easier navigation.

Images

All good here.

Citations

Some statements are uncited, such as "Parliament will not be evacuated from the centre stage of the decision-making process on this important matter". I suggest you have a read through and ensure that all quotations and statements are well referenced.
Otherwise, choice of citations are great.

Overall

A great article. If the above can be addressed, this is definitely GA material! :) SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Comment

@SerAntoniDeMiloni: I've followed your comments. Is anything else required. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PoliceSheep99: All good! Let me just go through the review now. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi PoliceSheep99. My review is attached. Enjoy the GA!

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Note

Hi PoliceSheep99. Just to add, there's currently a bit of a backlog with GA nominations... It would be great if you could help reduce some of these by reviewing other nominations. Wikipedia tries to get a 2 noms reviews per one you put out. If you don't have the time, that's also totally fine! Enjoy the GA though :) SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SerAntoniDeMiloni: I'd love to get involved but I'm really not sure how. Any tips of how to get started? PoliceSheep99 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PoliceSheep99:. Sure. The general criteria are under Wikipedia:Good article criteria. When reviewing, I generally have a read through, later going through each section of the article (as well as images and references) and make some suggestions for improvement based on the guideline. Once those are made, I use the review template shown above to go through the criteria. In the source text, the code "" can be changed from y to n or blank to show wether the criteria has been fulfilled. All the unreviewed nominations are found at Wikipedia:Good article nominations; some instructions can also be found at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]