Jump to content

Talk:Bass Maltings, Sleaford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bass Maltings, Sleaford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 10:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time


Tick box

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments on GA criteria

[edit]
Pass
Query


Fail

General comments

[edit]
  • Pass. This is a well written and informative piece on an interesting group of buildings. It's nice to do a review on a discrete and simple subject which is well written and researched as it makes the task so easy! SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference problem

[edit]

Reference 22 description says "Nos. 1389332 through 1389332" - looks like one of the numbers is in error. Would be good to have links/references to each of the entries referred to, also applies to ref 28. Keith D (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]