Talk:London Ringways/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 03:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 03:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Discussion

@DavidCane: Just a quick note to say the GA is underway, as you've done lots of work on the article, I'd imagine you want to add your input into this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to comment/respond.--DavidCane (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Copyvio check shows a mirror. Nothing wrong here.

All major claims are cited. The article is well written and is consistent with its grammar

I would like to see the maps for Ringways 2 - 4 the same size as Ringway 1.

I suggest adding {{British English}} to the talk page just as a courtesy notice.

Overall, this article meets all GA criteria, so I will be promoting it. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)