Talk:Warlugulong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~I wondered if the artcile would benefit from the use of {{Infobox painting}}? This is not a GA requirement.~~

~~In the section The painting two successive sentences start with "While". It would be better to avoid this.~~

...it was auctioned by Sotheby's... Was this in London or New York? Or in Australia?

Otherwise, prose is fine and meets MoS standards.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Online sources check out and are reliable. I found no evidence of OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~One detail is missing. What medium is the painting in?~~
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
One image used with a suitable rationale and caption.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing these issues so quickly. I am happy to list this as a good article, congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]