Talk:John Keats's 1819 odes/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: Blurpeace 02:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments[edit]

The article has some minor stylistic errors, in terms of the references' formatting. I'll go through and correct those. Blurpeace 02:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be a little busy in coming days. Once I get in contact with another editor, I'll resume the review. Thanks, Blurpeace 06:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any issues you see with the article, please let me know and I will try to work on them. I understand your busy schedule, as I myself am not editing regularly at the moment. Mrathel (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments[edit]

I probably won't be able to complete this review in a timely manner, so it may be best to request a new reviewer, Mrathel. There are still some formatting issues, and the sourcing could be done better. The quote may need to be reviewed as well. Good luck, Blurpeace 20:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer[edit]

New Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I made some minor copy-edits for spelling and to fix typos and some very slight re-arrangement to improve readability [1].
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The article is weel referenced to a number of sources, I assume good faith as I don not have access to the books. It would be good to add ISBNs to all post 1973 books, but this is not a GA requirement
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Good background, focussed on subject.
  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:
    I have no hesitation in passing this as a good artcile. Congratulations! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]