Talk:Poundland/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Why are "April 2000" and "September 2008" linked? In the Formation section, the link "Meadowhall" needs to be linked correctly. In the Management section, "Safeway" needs to be corrected. I believe that in the Products offered section, "DIY" is linked wrong, this is me. If its not, that's my bad there. Same section, "Colgate" and "Walkers" link. Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Health and safety section, why is "February 2006" linked?

   Done - I've made amendments to these links as suggested (fixed the disambig pages, added a few more I noticed whilst doing so, and delinked the dates). The DIY link I can't see an issue with (unless you mean the redirect), and the disambig page for it lists other articles which aren't relevant. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Some references are not formatted and some are. There needs to be a consistency usage of the refs. Also, References 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 25, and 27 are missing Publisher info.

   Done - I've made all remaining references consistant and added dates where available. Also some additional info has been added to the article and sourced appropriately. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

   Half-check. Reference 19 is missing Publisher info. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

   Whoops - well spotted. Converted to template with publisher info now so that should be all refs done. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Bungle for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks very much :) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)