Talk:Lindon Meikle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 22:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:

A good article, really comprehensive and detailed. However there is a major issue with citations. Checklinks shows there are a lot that are either not working (11, 13, 22, 26, 30, 35, 43) or outright dead (3, 5, 12, all of 16, 40, 41, 42, 51). But if you can get those cleaned up the article should be good to go. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review the article. The dead links in fact are okay, but for some reason Checklinks show them as being dead. Statto have a nasty habit of going offline, so I've archived those references. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems you are correct that they say dead but a quick look at a couple random ones shows they indeed work, so I'm going to ignore what Checklinks says, and give it a pass. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)