Talk:Valston Hancock/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The article maintains a good style and layout throughout.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   References are well used and thorough.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The article covers the major aspects and remains focused.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article maintains a neutral point of view.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The article does not appear to be subject to edit warring.

6. 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:

   Images are available within the public domain under Australian law.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A very interesting and well-written read. Harrison49 (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you very much for taking the time to review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)