Jump to content

Talk:Spooks series 7/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 23:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Let's get to knocking another one of these out then.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Prose style is grand. The red link to nuclear suitcase bomb should be nuclear suitcase bomb though.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    MOS seems fine.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Sources are fine, used well, and everything is supported so OR isn't a problem.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    The article's broad enough in scope without dwelling too much on any individual episode or going off elsewhere.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article is neutral and unbiased.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Article history is stable and uncontroversial.
  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:
    Images are grand - used appropriately and sourced adequately.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    All things added up, I see no reason not to pass this article. Good job.