Talk:Murphy Pakiam/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Overrall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- You need to check your wikilinks; I've corrected a couple that went to disambig pages, but there are another couple or so.
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well referenced.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well referenced.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time in reviewing this, and for your assessment. I have looked at the disambiguation issues and have resolved one. The last remaining one, parish priest, should not really be a disambiguation page. I will change it and start a new article on the topic in the next week as it deserves a page in its own right (with a link to the novel). Thanks so much again. - S Masters (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)