Jump to content

Talk:Royton/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Review by epicAdam:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Very nice prose. Best I've read for an article undergoing an initial GA nomination.
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    The demographics section could be expanded a tiny bit more. Just a few more sentence about education, ethnic makeup, etc. would be great.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This is truly a fantastic piece of work that is fully worthy of GA status. I'm passing Royton with the expectation that Jza84 or Malleus Fatuorum will be able to add in a sentence more about the demographics of the town. Best, epicAdam (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]