Talk:Old Bob/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Laurdecl (talk · contribs) 04:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a decent article. I'll give it a read. Laurdecl ^talk 04:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
No issues here.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
A tad short, but good enough to pass.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
At ~450 words, the article is fairly short. However, it seems to cover the topic as much as it possibly can, and length is not a criteria.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Congratulations! Laurdecl ^talk 05:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]