Talk:Edward Burne-Jones/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

Overall the article is well illustrated, appears comprehensive in scope; and appears to be at GA level. I will be looking at it in more detail today & tomorrow. I suspect that there will be a few minor niggle's, possibly on WP:verify, for instance Honours from Oxford and the Birmingham Society of Artists have no citations; and the "Influence" subsection has only one citation. Pyrotec (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
A few subjective comments, such as "unsympathetic housekeeper" and "troubled son" aught to be referenced but are not. Honours from Oxford and the Birmingham Society of Artists have no citations, but aught to be easily verifiable.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
see comments for 2A above.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Has a good comprehensive gallery of images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall the article is GA compliant, but small areas could do with more in-line citations. These are not considered serious enough to put the article "On Hold".

Congratulations. I'm awarding GA status. 20:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! I'll address those missing citations listed in 2A; they were here when I started the expansion, but as you said they should be easily verifiable. - PKM (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]