Jump to content

Talk:Bill Bowman (Scottish politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not a review, but...

[edit]

... shouldn't you mention what political party he was from in the first sentence of the article? Catrìona (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Curlymanjaro (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bill Bowman (Scottish politician)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 11:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Starting review

[edit]

As this is the oldest political item, I will commence the review. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria

[edit]
  1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
  2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
  3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
  4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
  5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
  6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
  7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation. Not applicable.
  8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
  9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
  10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
  11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  12. No original research.
  13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
  14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
  15. Neutral.
  16. Stable.
  17. Illustrated, if possible.
  18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Well, this should not have been on the waiting list so long. Apart from needing a few minor tweaks, it met all the applicable criteria and easily surpasses GA standard. It is particularly well referenced with more than ample sourcing and the breadth of coverage is just about right. I can't say I'm happy to be reviewing an article about a Tory but that makes for a useful exercise in applied objectivity! The article is nonetheless a good piece of work and I'm happy to award it a quick pass. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much No Great Shaker for taking time out on this lovely spring day. Your positive comments mean a lot. Curlymanjaro (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]