Talk:Farleigh Hungerford Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

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

   Fix capitalization of subtitle in Pounds.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Notes 4 and 5 are redundant with 1; readers can get an idea of the comparison by simple multiplication from the info in note 1

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nicely done. A few nits to resolve though.

Changes made, a couple of alternative examples found - see what you think! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)