Talk:As I was going by Charing Cross/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 19:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

After some minor gramamtical corrections and wikification, I believe this article follows MOS guidelines for prose at a respectable quality. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article makes good use of several reliable sources, with frequent citations and nothing left to OR chance. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

Bearing in mind that the article is very small, it does appear to cover all relevant aspects of the topic for which reputable information from third-party material could be acquired, and does not contain any trivial details. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

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

The article bears no bias towards or against its topic. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article's history goes back to its creation in 2005, and shows no indication of any edit warring. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The two images used in the article are public domain, and serve a relevant purpose in the article. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

I remember having read a comment by another user, with an example provided, that size in itself does not make much difference in whether an article can qualify for GA status. I must admit, I had some doubts that in my experience as a GA reviewer I would ever come across an article fitting this bill, but I believe that I have, as of this one. Congratulations! Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the rapid review and for dealing with the size issue. There is probably not much else that can be said about this topic based on reliable sources. Much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]