Talk:William Edward Sanders/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 10:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Zawed (talk)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 10:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
1: 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:
Check for WP:LEAD:
|
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT: Done
|
Done
Check for WP:WTW: Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT: Done
|
Done
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with the other A-class articles.)
Done
Check for WP:RS: Done Cross-checked with the other A-class articles: Howard Kippenberger, Herbert Ernest Hart, Alexander Godley, William George Malone, Frank Worsley
|
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
Cross-checked with the other A-class articles: Howard Kippenberger, Herbert Ernest Hart, Alexander Godley, William George Malone, Frank Worsley
|
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (PD)
Images:
|
---|
Done
6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
Zawed, I'm very happy and inspired to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:
I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis.
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Please feel free to strike out any recommendation from this review which you think will not help in improving the article which is our main aim here. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Seabuckthorn, many thanks for the review. That is an extensive and no doubt time-consuming checklist you have worked through there. I have revised both the lead and section headings in response to your comments. Let me know if you believe the lead still does not accurately reflect the body of the article or place appropriate weight on the VC. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- The lead looks perfect now! Thanks, Zawed, very much for your diligence, care and precision in writing such great articles. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 09:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 09:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)