Talk:Tickle Cock Bridge/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Interestingly, I watched the "Kevin McCloud and the Big Town Plan" broadcasts and I don't particularly "remember" the "old structure (without its roof)" in your first photograph. The second picture is a bit more familiar; but the one I do remember is the one "with the roof one" shown in ref 1. I think you aught to retitle that first picture to make it clear that the roof has gone; and, even better, show a picture with the roof on (if there is one to hand).
- Other than that, there is not much more I can say. You have a GA, congratulations on acheiving the standard. Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)