Talk:Old Bridge, Pontypridd/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
An interesting, well-sourced, 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:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- I've changed some templates, because published books were being used as sources not web sites, despite the use of GoogleBooks as "web" sources.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- The references provide additional information that would allow the scope to by partially extended (see below), but the current scope appears to be adequate.
- 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:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Overall this article is at GA-level so I'm awarding GA status.
There is some scope for adding a bit more information about the bridge, for instance the steps shown in the picture are later additions and there is a bit more information about the difficulties for non-pedestrian users of the bridge, but this does not detract too much and does not prevent GA status from being awarded.Pyrotec (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)