Talk:William Blackstone/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajbpearce (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In (probable) anticipation of you finally succeeding at RFA, I thought I would check for inevitable Ironholds GAN's and go through one as a congratulations.

This GAR does not appear to have progressed since 4 January 2011. Is work still ongoing? I would be happy to take over the review if the original reviewer has encountered difficulties. Leave me a message at my talk page if you would like me to step in. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Reviewer - DustFormsWords

Reviewer: - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been invited by Wizardman to take over this review given the apparent unavailability of the initial reviewer. My initial impression is that the article should be able to be quickly passed with minor improvements, but I will conduct a full GAR tomorrow to make sure this is the case and let you know when I am ready for responses (It's too late in my local day to start now.) Thank you for your patience. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

The prose is clearly written, concise, and very readable. I have not detected any errors of spelling or grammar.

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

This article complies with the manual of style for lead sections, layout, 'words to watch and list incorporation. The manual of style for fiction does not apply to this article.:

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All references appear in the section "References".

(b) 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);

All facts making extraordinary claims or which are likely to be challenged are sourced to reliable sources through the use of inline citations.

(c) it contains no original research.

The article does not appear to contain any original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

The article appears to be appropriately broad in its coverage.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article does not appear to go into unnecessary detail.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

As far as I am able to tell, all relevant viewpoints on this topic are represented by the article.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article does not appear to be the subject of rapid changes, edit wars, or ongoing disputes.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

All images appear to have valid legal rationales.

I'd note in passing (not necessary for GA and maybe not for FA) that File:Cavalier d'eon p. 608a.jpg is incorrectly labelled as the "own work" of the uploader. However the rest of that file's rationale makes its legal status and source clear.

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Images are relevant to the topic and are appropriately captioned.

Overview - I hate to pass an article to GA without finding at least something to improve, but I honestly can't fault this article against any of the GA. It passes all the criteria and as such I will be promoting it to Good Article. Well done to all editors involved. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]