Jump to content

Talk:History of Galveston, Texas/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

After a quick couple of read-throughs this article has the appearance of a good article: it appears to be well-referenced and well illustrated.

I will now do a more detailed check against WP:WIAGA, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. This might take a day or so; and during that time I will highlight below any "problems" that need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will respond to any problems or issues. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few rather minor problems, which are mentioned below. In view of this I'm going straight to an overall summary.
  • Exploration and settlement' -
  • Notes -

Pyrotec (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A well-written, comprehensive, well-referenced, well-llustrated article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well-referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Eell-referenced.
    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-llustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well-llustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Although there were three very minor problems, the overall standard of the article is such that it is compliant with WP:WIAGA. I'm therefore awarding the article GA-status. Congratulations on the quality of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]