Talk:Edmund Evans/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi. I will be reviewing this article. I have read it through and think that it is a wonderful piece of work. I will check through the GA criteria carefully in the next day or two to give you a complete review. Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 23:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
I disambiguated the link to Cruckshank. I hope I picked the right one.
The article is a little confusing to me over the issue of types of engraving. For example when it says "wood-engraver", does it mean woodcut? Or possibly Wood engraving?

The distinction between the two articles was a little difficult to discern, but it should linked to Wood engraving, as that was the method used during the time period. Done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I will be adding to the comments as I read through the article again.)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Wording is clear. There is a lot of information in a small amount of text so it requires careful reading. I would use more commas than you do, but when I tried adding some, it didn't read as well.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Article is well sourced. I see no original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article remains focused on the subject but covers the relevant areas.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
The images are beautiful and all are in the Public Domain.
Overall: A wonderful, concise article
Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! I really enjoyed the article. Xtzou (Talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]