Talk:The Byrds/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: ~~two found and tagged.[1]~~ And fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Well written, with good prose style and flow, complies with key MoS guidelines.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~Two dead links, probably as a result of websites being reorganised.~~ I found and updated the links. Sources support statements, appear to be RS, no evidence of OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Comprehensive and focussed, without digressions into unnecessary trivia.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images and sound samples check out.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
An interesting, comprehensive, well written and researched article that is clearly at GA status, so I have no hesitation in listing it. If you wish to take this further you may need to search out some more free use images as FAC appears to discourage use of non-free. I noticed when checking the article history that the primary contributor was not the nominator. The nominator appears to have made only one recent edit to the article in fact. It is to User:Kohoutek1138 that kudos should go. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]