Talk:Samuel Lightfoot Flournoy (politician)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 01:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one within the week. @West Virginian: please note that the West Virginia Legislature; West Virginia Senate (2011) ref has a Harv error; can you get this sorted out before I get started on the review? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to engage in this review. I'm thoroughly humbled to have this opportunity to work with you. I've removed the West Virginia Legislature source from 2011, as it was not cited within the prose as planned. Thank you again, and please feel free to let me know as you have comments and concerns in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC) (formerly Caponer)[reply]

@West Virginian: Did not have time to review this last week, but I'm back from vacation now, and will get to the review shortly. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep:, there is no rush to complete this review, so please do so at your leisure! Here's hoping your vacation was a very relaxing one! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Very good work. Looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosiestep, thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to engage in this Good Article review. All your hard work and contributions to Wikipedia are greatly appreciated, and I thank you again for this review! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]