Talk:Bohemond III of Antioch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 14:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Starting review

I'll commence this review shortly. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Checking for immediate failure conditions

WP:WIAGA#Immediate_failures states that an article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as "quick failing") if, prior to the review:

1. it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria:
2. it contains copyright infringements:
3. it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid — e.g., {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}:
4. the article is not stable due to edit warring on the page:

As the article has not failed any one of the above four tests, a full review will follow. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Full review criteria checks

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations:

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:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Reports

There is no reason for immediate failure. I have added the GA criteria above and will check each of these as part of the detailed review to commence soon. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've reviewed this in detail now and it's an informative, well-written and well-presented piece of work. The only little criticism I had, which I've resolved myself, was that there were several redlinks. I've removed those links but you can always relink them if and when the relevant articles are created. As you can see from the checklist above, I can't see any problems (e.g., images, neutrality, citations) and it passes all criteria. I'm closing the review now with GA=pass. Well done. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BlackJack, thank you for your review and your kind words. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)