Talk:Fulfordgate/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I have done a copyedit. While generally good, there are a number of very long and complex sentences that are very difficult to read. Try chopping long sentences in two, or using semicolons. Acres are to be converted to hectares, not square meters.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

   While an image would be nice, I understand that this can be very difficult to locate. The maps and diagrams will do.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)