Jump to content

Talk:Wellard/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 21:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

[edit]

Reviewing the article against the "quick-fail criteria".

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    • - the article is well sourced with a wide array of reference material.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
    • - no obvious NPOV tone to article.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
    • - no tags on page.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
    • - no edit warring over article.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    • - scope of article clear.

Article meets standards set out in the "quick-fail criteria", with no obvious issues or problems evident. Full review will now follow. Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main review

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • Well written. Prose is concise and flows. Paragraphs well structured and developed. No fragments or stand-alone sentences.
    b (MoS):
    • Conforms to manual of style.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • Well referenced. No broken links. Citation templates correctly formated.
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • Citations are to third party publications. References reflect a range of sources.
    c (OR):
    • No evidence of OR.
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.
    b (focused):
    • Remains focused. No digressions.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    • No issues concerning POV evident.
  5. It is stable:
    • No edit wars etc.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    • Images are properly tagged and justified.
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Pass

I was a little dubious this could be done, but have been proved wrong. The article is a well presented, informative piece on a very easily overlooked subject. Congratulations! Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 21:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review, Junipers Liege, it's much appreciated! Frickative 23:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]