Talk:Pearl Corkhill/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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 have read through this article, checking references, images, prose, MOS and all other criteria. I can find no issues that would prevent promotion to GA status. I have made a few minor changes, mainly minor copyedits and wikilinking. As I have no further comments with regards to the criteria, I am promoting this article to GA status.

One minor comment: Alt text, either its presence or its correctness, is not required for GA status. However, just as a note, you may want to take a further look at WP:ALT before writing more alt text for A-class or FAC (where it is respectively requested and required). Alt texts need to be verifiable by anyone looking at the photo, and should not include proper names. They should also describe what the photo is showing - for example, the alt text for the photo of the Corkhill sisters should be something like "Two young girls in white dresses sit, each holding a cat. In the background is a wooden fence." The whole alt text thing is just a suggestion, however, as it really has nothing to do with GA status!

Overall, this is a great article. Very nice work! Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this review. Dana boomer (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)