Talk:Murray Maxwell/GA1

GA Review

Right, a review now. The formalities:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

A. Prose: Yep, is it meant to say: "serve personal injury" or severe? Was that a direct quote? B. MoS: Good, you should delink the dates in the references where you can for consistency

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources: Good B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Good C. No original research: This comes with the other two, all seems to be cited.

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects: Yes B. Focused: Yes, very good

1. Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias: Yes

1. Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc: Yep, good on this front.

1. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Yes, no non-free images. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Yes.

1. Overall:

Good pass. Article was good, informative and neutral. I fixed a few typos, formatting errors but apart from that, looked good. Woody (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)