Jump to content

Talk:Anton Meyer/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: S Masters (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  • As SHO is used later, it should be in parenthesis on the first mention of Senior house officer.
  • Hyphens have been used instead of dashes, see WP:DASH.
  • Overlinking - only wikify once, on the first mention (the lead being an exception).
  • Spelling - particulary.

Summary: There are just some minor issues as outlined above. I will allow up to seven days for these to be rectified, before making any further decision.

Thank you very much for your review. I've fixed all the issues highlighted above, with one question - does overlinking apply to the references as well as links in the body of the article? The MOS on linking doesn't seem to address it - I'd assume it's similar to the long table clause, and each reference should be able to stand on its own, but if that's not the case I will of course be happy to change that too. Frickative 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments: Thank you for all your work in making this a better article. To answer your question, there are no rules that I am aware of for links in the references. As that section is used in such a way where the reader may be hopping to different parts of the section, I think it is not a bad idea to have them repeated. Since all issues have been resolved, I am now confident that the article meets all the requirements of a Good Article, and I am happy to pass it. -- S Masters (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]