Talk:Murphy Pakiam/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Overrall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   You need to check your wikilinks; I've corrected a couple that went to disambig pages, but there are another couple or so.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. 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:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well referenced.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well referenced.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time in reviewing this, and for your assessment. I have looked at the disambiguation issues and have resolved one. The last remaining one, parish priest, should not really be a disambiguation page. I will change it and start a new article on the topic in the next week as it deserves a page in its own right (with a link to the novel). Thanks so much again. - S Masters (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)