Talk:Siward Barn/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will be happy to review this article for GA. H1nkles (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
GA Review Philosophy
[edit]When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.
GA Checklist
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Article is good, writing is solid, well-referenced and stable. Photos are acceptable and MOS compliance checks out. A bit of overlinking to unnecessary articles but this can be forgiven. Pass with pleasure.
- Pass or Fail:
From Origins thru York to Ely
[edit]I've reviewed through the York to Ely section and the article looks fine. A bit of overlinking but nothing too concerning. The prose is good, and citing is comprehensive. I'll continue the review later. H1nkles (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Remaining sections
[edit]Everything is fine, there isn't much available on the subject after he is imprisoned other than his release. You do a good job of relaying the various possibilities while also indicating that these are speculative and uncomfirmed. Photos are fine, I still have to review the references but if they check out then the article will likely pass. H1nkles (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)