Talk:Brough Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

• The castle was finally restored in the late 17th century Um, it wasn't finally restored, and it wasn't the late 17th century. Re-phrase.

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

• three disambig links:
  • Cobble
  • River Eden
  • Wark Castle

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

• Where you have a URL, no need an accessdate

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All pictures have appropriate rationales

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

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Hopefully all done now - thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)