Talk:Henry Vane the Younger/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DCI (talk · contribs) 03:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I have finished another GAN, Spanish American wars of independence, and noticed that this one's been lying around for almost four months. A reading of it resulted in no major (or notable minor) errors.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

A well-done article that is deserving of GA status,

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article flowed along just fine, no issues here, or with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All in order, just one question. In the "Reputation" section, you should probably cite the claim, "Vane was widely recognized by contemporary chroniclers as an able statesman and administrator," even though you support this with a direct quote.

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:

   I was very pleased to see that the article did not contain any Royalist propaganda, or any "Vanist" statements! No, seriously, I found no issues in this regard.

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:

   Again, an interesting read and deserving of GA.