Talk:Disallowance and reservation in Canada/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Kwkintegrator (talk · contribs) 21:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Reviewer's comment: I am highly satisfied this reaches GA criteria. I have minor suggestions I will place in the main article talk page, but this was a pleasure to read. It isn't lost on me that this is a difficult and abstract topic, and it has been wrangled about as well as I can imagine to be accessible to a general audience. Excellent work on illustration, I would encourage use of descriptive image alt-text in future. I will finally note that an inherent weakness in this article may be the lack of non-book sources, as I know many Wikipedia users enjoy being linked out to something accessible for further reading, but with a link to La Forest's book, I'm satisfied the sources are reputable.Kwkintegrator (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]