Talk:1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Bernstein2291 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Bernstein2291 (Talk Contributions Sign Here) 17:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Most of your prose is good, but the lede has odd sentence construction. I suggest reading some ledes in other articles and write yours somewhat like those
    Thanks for reviewing. Could you be a little more specific on this point? Having written doezens of FAs and GAs I've tried to write this lead in similar manner but perhaps there's something I'm missing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
    I don't usually see opening sentences that put the date last. Also on the third sentence you should get rid of the "to be" before "followed". Besides that It looks fine. Bernstein2291 (Talk Contributions Sign Here) 04:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Ah, thanks -- yep, fair enough, changed those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Great. I think it can pass now. Bernstein2291 (Talk Contributions Sign Here) 16:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  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:  
  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:  
    I'm going to hold this article for now until the lede gets fixed.
    It can pass now.