Talk:Central Saint Giles/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Shearonink in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    See References section below. Shearonink (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
    Issues fixed. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    Ran copyvio tool and found no problems. Shearonink (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    I like the fact that the writer/s gave the history of the location, not just the present structures built there. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

References

edit

Several references are deadlinks - they will have to be fixed for the Review to proceed.

@Shearonink:, thanks very much for doing this review. I've updated all four of the above links. Prioryman (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Prioryman: I went ahead and fixed the one remaining did URL (that 'color of money' one). Oh, and, by the way, congrats - it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply