Talk:The Converted Deacon

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Converted Deacon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll another one again if you don't mind! JAGUAR  15:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I would recommend cutting the lead into two paragraphs to make the lead more balanced, per WP:LEAD

   Why is "Independent" capitalised in the lead?

   "Though the reviewer in the The New York Dramatic Mirror however disagreed that the premise was plausible" - I would cut "however" and add a semi-colon at the end before the quote

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A solid and well researched article with no major problems that would make this to be put on hold. JAGUAR  17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)