Talk:Paul S. Walsh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 12:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. 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.--GoP_T^C_N 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

   How reliable is ref 24?--GoP_T^C_N 11:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

   I removed the references as the prior reference contains that information.--GoP_T^C_N 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.--GoP_T^C_N 11:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

   Ok, fixed.--GoP_T^C_N 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

3. 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

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: