Talk:Texas annexation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 19:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Beginning to review this article for GAN... Okay! After extensive copyediting, here are my thoughts, keeping in mind that I'm not an experienced Good Article reviewer.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I extensively edited the article for typos, spelling, and grammar, and I think it's now up to snuff. I've also worked on layout and organization to try to improve MoS compliance.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I don't have access to the texts cited, so someone else who could confirm that they support the substance of the text would be very helpful.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images claim to be public domain through age except one map, which was released by the author under a CC license.

7. Overall: The article seems to me to meet all the criteria.

   Pass/Fail: