Talk:Spooks series 7/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 23:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Let's get to knocking another one of these out then.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose style is grand. The red link to nuclear suitcase bomb should be nuclear suitcase bomb though.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS seems fine.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Sources are fine, used well, and everything is supported so OR isn't a problem.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The article's broad enough in scope without dwelling too much on any individual episode or going off elsewhere.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral and unbiased.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article history is stable and uncontroversial.

6. 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:

   Images are grand - used appropriately and sourced adequately.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All things added up, I see no reason not to pass this article. Good job.