Jump to content

Talk:Craig Bellamy/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 19:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: apologies for the delay - the article is rather long. Should be done tomorrow though. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Lead sufficiently covers the article. Written immaculately - I only found one typo, and those can't be avoided.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    A large number of suitable references. The ones I checked clearly mentioned the information written by author.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Stays focused and covers pretty much everything.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Currently stable. Edit war on 20 June 2019 - appears to have been resolved.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Suitable used with good captions. Appropriate credit given to author. Could do with a few more images, but sufficient for criteria.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Very well written, sufficiently verified covering the player's career. Well done!