Jump to content

Talk:Valston Hancock/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: Harrison49 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The article maintains a good style and layout throughout.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    References are well used and thorough.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    The article covers the major aspects and remains focused.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article maintains a neutral point of view.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    The article does not appear to be subject to edit warring.
  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:
    Images are available within the public domain under Australian law.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    A very interesting and well-written read. Harrison49 (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for taking the time to review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]