Talk:Serjeant-at-law/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   It's an impossible topic to make compelling, but no prose issues, and no issues with the parts of the MOS that matter. I know it will probably bring the Wrath Of Malleus down on me to say it, but I find "The Serjeants-at-law is…" a bit jarring and this is a case where you might want to consider it as a plural – but that's purely a matter of opinion, as both are grammatically correct.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It's a narrow topic and the article does stray slightly, but I'd say this is a case where straying is a net positive, as it adds background to a necessarily dull topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Impossible to sign off on "stable", given that it's only existed in this form for less than a day, but I can't see any signs of storm-clouds on the horizon.

6. 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):

   Technically File:Old Serjeant's Inn plaque London.jpg is a non-free image; under CDPA88 commemorative plaques are "graphic works", not "works of artistic craftsmanship" and consequently not covered by freedom of panorama, and hence the uploader was not in a position to release it as {{pd-self}}. I'm overlooking it as I can't imagine the Corporation of London giving the WMF any problems over it, but be aware it is technically challengable by anyone who wants to make an issue of it, and Commons might delete it at any time.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer:  – iridescent 23:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)