Talk:Steep Holm/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 15:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Will take a day or two to finish. Please be patient.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
No copyvio issue. There are some grammar issues throughout the article, particularly in the history section, especially with run-on and awkward sentences. I'll point out some - Prehistoric: the 4th and 5th sentences in the 2nd paragraph; Religious foundations: 1st, 8th, 9th sentences; Manorial, sentences 2, 4, 7, 2nd paragraph, sentences 1, 3,

I have attempted to improve these.— Rod ^talk 15:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodw - there are still quite a few throughout the article. I went in to the sections I mentioned and made some corrections. This is really the only issue I still see. Very nice job so far. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have been through and made a few more grammar changes. Are there other "run-on and awkward sentences" that I'm not spotting?— Rod ^talk 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodw - There are a couple throughout (the World wars section) comes to mind. But I don't think enough to keep this from GA. You might want to take one more look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Lead is a good summary of the article, good layout.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Well referenced. Couple of places that might be cases of WP:CITEKILL (e.g. 2nd paragraph in Palmerston Fort - consider of moving some to an "External links" section)

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Everything is well sourced.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Covers the island and all its aspects.

B. Focused (see summary style):
No section goes into too much depth, yet each section adequately covers its subject.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All images are public domain or have the appropriate CC license

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall: pass
Pass or Fail: