Talk:RAF Uxbridge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Several tags need to be addressed

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Same as Northolt comment

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
List of tenant units over time as per Northolt article needed.

A list of units has been added. Harrison49 (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Needs a map showing location.

A request has been raised for a map at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Harrison49 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, there is the drop-down map which comes from the coordinates at the top of the article. Harrison49 (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

You don't seem to be using any of the sources in the Bibliography. Delete them or move them to a "further reading" section if you want to keep them in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, these weren't added by myself. I've renamed the section as Further reading. Harrison49 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]