Talk:Willie Irvine/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: two found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Good prose, well structured.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~Two dead links as noted above~~

Otherwise well referenced, no OR, spotchecks show sources support cites, RS, assume good faith for ofline sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Excellent coverage.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
stable
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):
Licences and captions OK, pity there is no picture of the subject.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
JUst relacements needed for the Lancashire Telegraph article which is not archived at the Internet Archive. I expect that you can find replacements. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Arbero fixed the dead links; the website had just moved the pages. I didn't realise and messed things up, but it's all fixed now. Thanks for the review, just let me know if anything else needs fixing. Cheers, Big Dom 09:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all good now, happy to list. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.