Talk:The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I grow old and forgetful. A few sentences into this excellent article I realised I had read it before – when it was at peer review. I don't think having been a peer reviewer inhibits me from reviewing the article for GAN, and therefore...
Overall summary[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- 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:
Unarguably good, in my view, and distinctly an article rather than a list. A delight to revisit (though "The Speckled Band" may keep me awake tonight). Now then, I am supposed to prod a recipient of a GA promotion into reviewing someone else's nomination from the long list of candidates: what comes around goes around you know, so pray ponder, Harrias and wade in if you can. Tim riley talk 19:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)