Jump to content

Talk:2011 Grand National/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: Puffin Let's talk! 19:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct?  Done - No issues

2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation?  Done - No issues

3. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout?  Done - No issues

4. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines?  Done - No issues

5. It contains no original research?  Done - No issues

6. It addresses the main aspects of the topic?  Done - Very good

7. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail?  Done - Not too much detail I suppose

8. It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each?  Done -

9. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute?  Not done - Looking at the history, there are a few disputes.

10. Illustrated, if possible, by images:  Done

(a) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content?  Done - All images fine.

(b) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions?  Done

Pass or fail?  Done Pass because of second opinion.

2nd Opinion[edit]

An IP inserting unsourced material is not an editing dispute. I have reverted them. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]