Talk:Haakon IV/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

From a quick read of this article and the references, this article appears to be at or about GA level, possibly well on its way to being a WP:FAC. Nevertheless I'm just going to review it against WP:WIAGA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Historical sources & Background and childhood -

• These two sections are compliant.

• Reign -

...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• This section appears to be fully compliant.

• Views on Haakon's reign & Children and marriage -

• These two sections are compliant.

• WP:Lead -

• This should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points. It does both and is acceptable, although a bit more detail (or "meat") in the summary would help improve the the lead.

Pyrotec (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting an informative article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The Lead is acceptable as an introduction, but a bit more detailed summary of the main points would be beneficial. However, it's just about adequate to allow me to award GA-status as it is.

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well illustrated.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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:

   Well illustrated.

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

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I think this article could make WP:FAC although I suspect that the WP:Lead would need to be improved, i.e. a more detailed summary of the main points in the article, to get this article up to FA-standard.

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Its a good article and now A Good Article. Congratulations. Pyrotec (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)