Talk:Increase Sumner/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Michael! (talk · contribs) 11:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! I'll review this article. It certainly looks good. Initial comments will follow soon.Michael! (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
First GA review
[edit]As I said, it looks good and I think it's certainly a GA. Here are a few minor remarks you should have a quick look at. However, I still have to check the references before I'll pass it as a GA.Michael! (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I checked many of the notes and references and didn't encounter any serious problems. I'll pass this article as a GA soon.Michael! (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]- "bar": I assume you mean the legal meaning (bar_(law)), not the pub/establishment or any other meaning of bar.
- "Commonwealth": I assume you mean Massachusetts: Commonwealth_(U.S._state)#Commonwealth_of_Massachusetts. It might be a good idea to provide a short note, a wikilink, or to rephrase this, since Commonwealth has several meanings, which might be confusing to British people unfamiliar with the history of MA, for instance.
- "slavery": is this wikilink relevant? Or could you provide a better, more specific wikilink?
- "gubernatorial succession": although I'm not afraid of big words, I seriously doubt if everybody understand this. Could you rephrase it?
- "France", "US constitution" and "gov of MA" are wikilinked, but "British authority" and "US president" aren't.
- Note [28]: page 44 doesn't seem relevant. Are you sure you cited the correct page number?
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to review this. I think I've addressed these issues -- good catch on that last one, it was the wrong page number. Magic♪piano 14:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
GA criteria
[edit]- Well-written:
- the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; passed
- it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. passed
- Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; passed
- it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; passed
- it contains no original research. passed
- Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic; passed
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). passed
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. passed
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. passed
- Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; passed
- images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. passed
Conclusion
[edit]There are no issues with this article and it certainly meets all of the GA criteria. Therefore, it is passed as a GA and already listed here. Done
User:Magicpiano, thank you for your work on this article.