Talk:William the Carpenter/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There a high degree of reliance on primary sources, but I can understand how that is dictated by the obscure nature of the subject.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It is short, but again, it's an obscure subject and I think you've gotten a lot out of it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)