Jump to content

Talk:The Ash Garden/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: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. If there are any offline references you want to check, let me know and I will email them to you. maclean (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]

Pass

[edit]

The prose is clear and informative. The lead is adequate, though could contain a little more of the story. The conclusion of the novel is also a little unclear from the Summary, and that could be looked into as part of ongoing development. The article is well sourced and the sources check out. Tone is neutral and balanced. Coverage appears to be acceptable - though a little more clarity regarding the content and outcome of the novel would be welcome. Well done on the research and writing to get the article to GA standard. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. maclean (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]