Talk:Special Reserve/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 20:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Well written and interesting subject.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   References are ok, except that you have two Mitchinson books, but citations 12, 21, and 22 do not include the year which is necessary for verifiability

Oops! My bad. Good catch. Fixed now. Factotem (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: