Jump to content

Talk:47th (London) Infantry Division/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: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this one following its nomination for GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments/suggestions: G'day, nice work as always. I have the following comments/suggestions/observations by way of an initial review: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I have left some comments above for you, and otherwise actioned your suggestions (hopefully to your satisfaction :) ) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks -- please check you are happy with those changes and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well written: checkY

a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: checkY

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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;
c. it contains no original research; and
d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: checkY

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. checkY

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute checkY

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: checkY

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.