Talk:Stanley Bruce/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: - Adam37 Talk 15:36, 23 July 2013 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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).	206 extremely relevant sources, all of which appear properly formatted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No first-person or on-the-ground sources are used for contestable statements, save for recent photographs excepted from no original research in my view.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Compared to an average article on a Prime Minister, Bruce is very well developed, adopts a politically neutral tone of words and covers all of the notable facts.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No deviations
	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.
	7. Overall assessment.

Bruce's article has no good article shortcomings in my view, having regard to all the good article criteria. Indeed no links are broken. The article has easy potential to reach featured article status subject to those criteria.

So, is it promoted or what? Pls follow WP:GAN/I. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes did allow minor cooling off period, relatively new to devoting time to reviewing. Yes it is. - Adam37 Talk 21:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Adam37 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]