Talk:Bridgwater and Taunton Canal/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- While there is extensive debate on the talk page concerning the use of {{convert}}, the accuracy and look of the template gives a consistent look, that the manual conversions fail to do; for instance if the input is 120, then that presumes an accuracy of two digits, not three. If more accuracy is wanted, this can be done by tweaking the
sigfig=syntax in the template.
- While there is extensive debate on the talk page concerning the use of {{convert}}, the accuracy and look of the template gives a consistent look, that the manual conversions fail to do; for instance if the input is 120, then that presumes an accuracy of two digits, not three. If more accuracy is wanted, this can be done by tweaking the
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- All matters check good, so the article is passed. Arsenikk (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
