Talk:Parliament Act 1911/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 21:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 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):
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:

Comments

External links all ok - no action needed
There is one disamb link Writ of summons
The two books without ISBNs could have OCLC numbers added suggestion only
Conservative and Liberal should be linked for non British readers

I've addressed all of these (well, not the first!). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

Well done I enjoyed reading it some very minor points. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]