Talk:Edinburgh town walls/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A Good Article
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- Well referenced.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
An interesting and informative article. There is a bit of information: in Stevenson, Sylvia; Simpson, Anne Turner and Holmes, Nicholas (1981). Historical Edinburgh, Canongate & Leith: the archaeological implications of development. Scottish Burgh Survey. Ancient Monuments Inspectorate, Scottish Development Department, that could you could possibly add to this article; but there is nothing that appears to contradict what you have in the article.
Notwithstanding the above comment, this article is compliant with the requirments for GA; so I'm awarding GA-status. Congratulations on acheiving GA. Pyrotec (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)