Talk:Cunard Building/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    •  
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
    •  
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
    •  
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
    •  
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    •  

No problems found checking against quick fail criteria. On to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):  
    b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    • appear to be reliable
    c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    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:  
Still down. Do you have other sources? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. Ok I have accessed the site and it checks out. OK. I am happy to confirm that this is worthy of Good Article status. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply