Talk:Stafford Meadow Brook/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Alexislynn(BYU) (talk · contribs) 17:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Sentence five under "Course" Subheading: change passing to passes. Awkward wording in sentence one under "Recreation" subheading and paragraph two, sentence one of the "Hydrology" subheading- reword to improve clarity.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section looks good; briefly summarizes main points of the article. Layout is fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Everything looks very good. I am placing the article on hold for 7 days in order for minor corrections to be made as listed under 1a. Good work! Alexislynn(BYU) (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexislynn(BYU): Done now, though I think you meant paragraph 1, sentence 2 for hydrology. Thanks for the review anyway! --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]