Talk:Hugh John Casey/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A wide ranging, well referenced article.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status, as it is compliant with WP:WIAGA and it is informative and well written. I note that several of the published sources were written by "Hugh J Casey"; and that it might be argued that almost 50% of the citations are based on WP:Primary sources. In different circumstances, I might suggest that this article could have potential as a WP:FAC, but I'm making no recommendations here. Pyrotec (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)