Talk:Willy Loman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Article appears to be reasonably well written. I do not see any major grammatical problems that impact clarity. The infobox looks good. The lead appears to be written in summary style and does not contain new information not cited elsewhere.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Checked all these sources when doing the DYK review and no plagiarism concerns. Article fully supported by citations. Information cited in text supported by sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article appears broad in coverage. Having read this play (at uni and high school) and seen the movie, it appears to cover this character well with no major gaps. I might make some content changes if taking to FAC but meh here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Read the article again. I'm not seeing any issues with neutrality here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No AfDs. No rename proposals. No ongoing edit wars. Article appears to be stable.

6. 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):

   Images have acceptable copyrights/disclaimers. They have descriptions below them that explain why they are in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Between DYK and subsequent other edits, not seeing anything here that needs work.