Talk:Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Biography / Military (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Cricket (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Good article Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;

  • Yes. Because I am not as familiar with British English grammar, I have assumed that any eccentricities to my eyes are variations from American English.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

  • Yes.
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

  • Yes.

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;

  • Yes.

(c) it contains no original research.

  • Yes.
  3. Broad in its coverage:

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

  • Yes.

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

  • Yes.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  • Yes.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Yes.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

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

  • Yes.

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

  • Yes.

I see no reason not to consider this a good article. Congratulations. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)