Talk:2011 Grand National/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct? Done - No issues

2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation? Done - No issues

3. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout? Done - No issues

4. 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines? Done - No issues

5. It contains no original research? Done - No issues

6. It addresses the main aspects of the topic? Done - Very good

7. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? Done - Not too much detail I suppose

8. It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each? Done -

9. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute? Not done - Looking at the history, there are a few disputes.

10. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Done

(a) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content? Done - All images fine.

(b) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions? Done

Pass or fail? Done Pass because of second opinion.

2nd Opinion

An IP inserting unsourced material is not an editing dispute. I have reverted them. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]