Talk:James Acaster/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 11:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this review, which will count towards the WikiCup and current backlog drive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   See #spotchecks.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   See #spotchecks.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The images of the Taskmaster building and of Rosenstock seem to fall under WP:DECOR, to my mind.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Excellently written article. Just a minor image issue above. Hope the spotchecks don't go badly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, AirshipJungleman29! I think strictly speaking it's more MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE than WP:DECOR for images (not icons), but point taken and I've removed both of those images. — Bilorv (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• 14 good
• 29 good
• 61 good
• 66 good
• 72 good
• 76 good
• 86 good
• 107 good
• 126 good
• 127 good
• 137 good
• 158 good

Cracking job Bilorv. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.