Talk:William Sudell/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I shall be reviewing this article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • Adequately sourced

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • WP:NPOV

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • no cleanup banners

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • no edit warring

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • n/a

No problems with quickfail crieria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The article is reasonably well written, I made a few a copy-edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • The article conforms with the WP:MOS Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • References support the facts as far as it is possible to ascertain. I assume WP:AGF for print sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All sources conform with WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • I find no evidence of WP:OR Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is broad in its scope ....

   b (focused):

   • .... and remains focussed throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Complies with WP:NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • No evidence of edit wars. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • One public domain image is used, correctly tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • A suitable caption is used for the image Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I am happy to pas this as a Good article. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)