Talk:Hubert Brooks/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 11:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

There were a few minor punctuation errors which I corrected, but other than that, everything is fine with regards to the writing. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

The article is very well-cited to reputable sources, and I don't see anything which looks like original research. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Not having known anything about Brooks prior to studying this article, I'll assume good faith over the covering of the main aspects - that is to say, I don't think any relevant encyclopedic information that was available in the sources used to build this article up was excluded. Everything is put together well, and no trivial information is present. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

I saw no evidence of bias in the information as presented, anywhere in the article. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Out of 27 edits since July 2nd, 2010, none appear to have been made in an edit war. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The sole image used in the article is used under acceptable fair-use terms involving deceased subjects, and has a valid fair-use rationale and license provided. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Here's one more accolade for Hubert Brooks - he's now a GA! Congrats, Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]