Talk:Abbotsford Bridge

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Fredddie in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abbotsford Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I will review the article shortly. –Fredddie 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    The lead seems a little short. There is a long history section yet there is only one sentence of history in the lead.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Overall pretty good, but I think the lead needs to reflect the length of the history section. –Fredddie 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done - Has been expanded, if you think it requires further expansion let me know (and some pointers of what needs more focus) -- Nbound (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's more like it. Passing now. –Fredddie 04:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply