Talk:Paul S. Walsh/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 12:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- I cleaned up the references. Some small fixes need to be made before I resume:
External links: "Independent article September 2005" is dead- I removed it as I was unable to find an archive.--GoPTCN 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
How reliable is ref 24?--GoPTCN 11:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)- I removed the references as the prior reference contains that information.--GoPTCN 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The title in ref 4 is missing. As I don't have access to The Times you have to edit it.--GoPTCN 11:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)- Ok, fixed.--GoPTCN 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the references. Some small fixes need to be made before I resume:
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- Not sure if the mention of his favourite beer is not trivial, but I skip it
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail: