Talk:Tom Kilburn/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yoshi24517 (talk · contribs) 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing your article. Tagging @Rcsprinter123:

Per the guidelines at WP:WIAGA,
1. Well-written ✓ Pass

1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct ✓ Pass It is very clear and concise. Anyone who knows nothing about Tom Kilburn can find meaningful content on this page.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation ✓ Pass Great job! There are no problems with how the headers should be set up, as with WP:MOS.

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 ✓ Pass There are no blogs, or anything of the sort that is not verifiable.

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) ✓ Pass Great job! They are all reliable sources.

2c. it contains no original research ✓ Pass There is no original research. Everything is linked to a reliable source.

2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism ✓ Pass Accoring to here [1], there is a little bit of a copyright violation, but that is a reliable source that is cited.

3. Broad in its coverage ✓ Pass

3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic ✓ Pass The article is very broad. The article does address the main aspects of the topic.

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) ✓ Pass The does go a little into detail, but it is fine. (Nothing a little editing can't fix.)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each ✓ Pass Per WP:NPOV, there are no opinions or anything of that sort.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✓ Pass I have checked the edit history, and there are no edit wars going on. Great Job!
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio ✓ Pass There are many images in the article.

Extra Things to Correct:

Please expand the lead, as per WP:LEAD.
Please make the spelling of words so that they follow British or American spelling.

This is what I have reviewed. If you can fix those extra things, I will pass the article. Thanks! Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 23:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshi24517: This article has 9,585 characters readable prose, so per WP:LEADLENGTH, it should have a lead of one or two paragraphs. I have doubled it in length to two paragraphs. I have run a spelling check on the article, and I think we have corrected all the spelling errors. Hope this addresses all the issues. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I'm a little busy, so I won't be able to pass the article until tomorrow. I'll check for anything else that need fixing. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 05:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I found the quote you put near the bottom of the article. Please put quotations marks on the quote that the article has. Thanks! Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 22:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE: Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whoops! Sorry, didn't read that. Overall: ✓ Pass. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 04:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging: @Hawkeye7: Congratulations!