Talk:John Edward Brownlee/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: maclean (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Notes
- All 15 images public domain
- In 'UGG director', they were functionally identical to it - please clarify who 'they' and 'it' are referring to.
- In Electoral record, % to the second decimal place is probably not a needed level of accuracy (14.85% could be 14.9%).
- The article is very good. The prose is clear and the references are all fine. It is certainly broad, and is focused on the subject the entire way through. -maclean (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)