Talk:Solomon Butcher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Solomon Butcher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

On first pass, this looks solid and ripe for promotion. Thanks for creating an article on this interesting figure and taking it this far.

The only tiny quibble I have so far is with "an invaluable resource" -- would you settle for "valuable"? "Invaluable" always seems slightly exaggerated to me as an intensifier. ("valuable" is also used in the article body, so this would correlate well.) This doesn't rise to the level of a GA criteria issue, though, so don't worry about it for purposes of this review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is excellent. I don't have access to the Carter, but spotchecks of other sources show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. 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.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. File:Omer Kem's sod house.jpg, File:Rawding family sod house.jpg, and File:First train into Broken Bow, Nebraska.jpg need to be tagged with US copyright status.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA