Talk:Steep Holm/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 15:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Will take a day or two to finish. Please be patient.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   No copyvio issue. There are some grammar issues throughout the article, particularly in the history section, especially with run-on and awkward sentences. I'll point out some - Prehistoric: the 4th and 5th sentences in the 2nd paragraph; Religious foundations: 1st, 8th, 9th sentences; Manorial, sentences 2, 4, 7, 2nd paragraph, sentences 1, 3,

I have attempted to improve these.— Rod ^talk 15:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rodw - there are still quite a few throughout the article. I went in to the sections I mentioned and made some corrections. This is really the only issue I still see. Very nice job so far. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been through and made a few more grammar changes. Are there other "run-on and awkward sentences" that I'm not spotting?— Rod ^talk 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rodw - There are a couple throughout (the World wars section) comes to mind. But I don't think enough to keep this from GA. You might want to take one more look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead is a good summary of the article, good layout.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Well referenced. Couple of places that might be cases of WP:CITEKILL (e.g. 2nd paragraph in Palmerston Fort - consider of moving some to an "External links" section)

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Everything is well sourced.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers the island and all its aspects.

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   No section goes into too much depth, yet each section adequately covers its subject.

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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are public domain or have the appropriate CC license

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: pass

   Pass or Fail: