Jump to content

Talk:Montagu Toller

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

GA Review

[edit]

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Montagu Toller/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 01:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Copyvio check

[edit]

Earwig says good to go.

File

[edit]

The image used is appropriate, of acceptable quality and copyright-free:

File:MH Toller.png: valid public domain rationale.

Prose

[edit]

Refs

[edit]

Passes spotcheck—no concerns with refs 2, 6, 7, 10 or 15. I have access to BNA. Formatting:

Other

[edit]

Short desc, section formatting, external link and cats good.

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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk19:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Harrias (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 21:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Montagu Toller; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Hi Onegreatjoke (talk), review follows; article promoted to GA on 16 February; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't spot any overly close paraphrasing in a spot check on source and Earwig is clear; hook fact is interesting and mentioned in the article, AGF on offline sourcing (though other sources I checked confirm the fact); a QPQ has been carried out. Good to go - Dumelow (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]