Talk:William Blackstone/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ajbpearce (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In (probable) anticipation of you finally succeeding at RFA, I thought I would check for inevitable Ironholds GAN's and go through one as a congratulations.

  • This GAR does not appear to have progressed since 4 January 2011. Is work still ongoing? I would be happy to take over the review if the original reviewer has encountered difficulties. Leave me a message at my talk page if you would like me to step in. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

New Reviewer - DustFormsWords[edit]

Reviewer: - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I have been invited by Wizardman to take over this review given the apparent unavailability of the initial reviewer. My initial impression is that the article should be able to be quickly passed with minor improvements, but I will conduct a full GAR tomorrow to make sure this is the case and let you know when I am ready for responses (It's too late in my local day to start now.) Thank you for your patience. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. Well written:
    (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; Green tick.svg
    The prose is clearly written, concise, and very readable. I have not detected any errors of spelling or grammar.
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Green tick.svg
    This article complies with the manual of style for lead sections, layout, 'words to watch and list incorporation. The manual of style for fiction does not apply to this article.:
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; Green tick.svg
    All references appear in the section "References".
    (b) 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; Green tick.svg
    All facts making extraordinary claims or which are likely to be challenged are sourced to reliable sources through the use of inline citations.
    (c) it contains no original research. Green tick.svg
    The article does not appear to contain any original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Green tick.svg
    The article appears to be appropriately broad in its coverage.
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Green tick.svg
    The article does not appear to go into unnecessary detail.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.Green tick.svg
    As far as I am able to tell, all relevant viewpoints on this topic are represented by the article.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.Green tick.svg
    The article does not appear to be the subject of rapid changes, edit wars, or ongoing disputes.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Green tick.svg
    All images appear to have valid legal rationales.
    • I'd note in passing (not necessary for GA and maybe not for FA) that File:Cavalier d'eon p. 608a.jpg is incorrectly labelled as the "own work" of the uploader. However the rest of that file's rationale makes its legal status and source clear.
    (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Green tick.svg
    Images are relevant to the topic and are appropriately captioned.

Overview - I hate to pass an article to GA without finding at least something to improve, but I honestly can't fault this article against any of the GA. It passes all the criteria and as such I will be promoting it to Good Article. Well done to all editors involved. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)