Talk:Bal maiden/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

On this basis of a very quick read of this article, I anticipate that it should gain GA-status by the end of this review. I'm now going to work my way through the article, but leaving any consideration of the WP:lead until the end.

This stage is looking for "problems, so content of this section is going to be mostly about problems, if any. Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Background -

• This section looks OK.

• Mechanisation and the 18th century copper boom -

....Stopping at this point. To be continued (tomorrow). Pyrotec (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• This section looks OK.

• Industrialisation and the 19th century copper boom -

• This section looks OK.

• • Total numbers, Typical work -

• These two subsections look OK.

• • Working conditions -

• This subsections looks OK.

• Decline -

• This section looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• This section looks OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An informative and well-referenced article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Well illustrated.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm delighted to be able to award this article GA-status. I believe that could be a strong candidate for WP:FAC. Pyrotec (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)