Talk:William Cragh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

This looks to be a good article. I will now review the article in more depth. At this point I will be mostly highlighting "problems", if any; so if I don't have much to say about a particular section, that probably means that I consider to be compliant (or I fixed any minor "errors" and so did not need to highlight them here). Pyrotec (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on finding a "niche" subject and bringing it up to GA. Pyrotec (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)