Jump to content

Talk:White Horse Prophecy/GA2

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC) I'll pose a full review shortly but it looks favourable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Did some spot-checks, all clean.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
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). Yes in the most part; the external link in ref #31 is broken and should be fixed or another source found. (It would be nice to have 2 sources for the claim. I don't imagine this is too difficult.) Done.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. File:EdwinRushton.jpg has invalid licencing. Because copyright is life+70, it is easily conceivable the photographer lived to 1941 if Mr Rushton is older than he looks. I'm not sure we need to know what he looks like, anyway. Remove, I suggest, or investigate (possibly both in that order and restore if a specific author and/or sufficiently accurate date can be found). Removed as suggested.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All fine.
7. Overall assessment.

Almost there! One or two fairly small things - on hold for 7 days. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see you've attended to these things, so I'm passing the article. Consider reviewing a nomination against the criteria - GAN runs a constant backlog. Nice one! Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]