Talk:Sherlock Holmes Baffled/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: None found

Linkrot: One dead link repaired.[1] –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I made one minor copyedit.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Can we have ISNs for the books, please?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am going to pass this as GA status, but the artcile could be improved by adding ISBN numbers. –– Jezhotwells (talk)

Thanks very much! Will endeavour to add those ISBNs - might try putting the refs in template format as well. Bob talk 16:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)