Talk:Gunnersbury Triangle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Duplication Detector on Labs found no cause for concern. I also read each individual online source. AGF on offline sourcing.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The Habitats section is an informative and well-sourced list that is pertinent to the subject matter. Layout conforms to WP MOS, and lead appropriately summarizes the article. Neutral and compliant. Fiction does not apply to this article.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Bibliography, Notes and References sections are appropriately formatted.

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   Content looks good, cited in every paragraph. All quotations in the article are also sourced.

   C. No original research:

   None that I could spot.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Primary editor is Chiswick Chap, with minor edits by others.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   One non-free image rationale OK per WP:FUC; all other images uploaded at Commons and appropriately licensed.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   In addition to images used in sections, there are two galleries at the bottom of the article. The Activities gallery is well-captioned and appropriate in its depiction, with links to WP articles where necessary. The Biodiversity gallery is excellent in capturing the flora and fauna, with most having links to matching WP articles on each subject.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Everything looks good. Happy to pass this. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)