Talk:Holby City/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- References check out, no OR
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- Broad and focussed
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- tagged, licensed and captioned
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I found no issues with this article. It is a little long, but that is not a GA criterion. If you decide to take this to WP:FAC the length may become an issue. Passing as a good article. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Thank you very much for your review! I'll definitely keep the length issue in mind before a potential FAC nom. I think this is the article that I've been working on the longest in all my time on Wikipedia - since about 2007 now - and it has grown considerably in that time. I'll try and pinpoint some areas that could be condensed while retaining overall broadness of coverage. Thanks again! Frickative 20:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)