Talk:Change UK/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 17:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This article's contents look pretty interesting, and off the bat I don't see any reason to quickfail the article, so I'll get right into it. If you have any questions or comments,feel free to leave a comment here or my talk page, either's fine! —DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review, appreciate it! I've fixed the was > were issue. As for the lead, I really enjoy it, not overly long, interesting and to the point. I'm happy to trim if you insist and also any suggestions would be welcome on doing that. I do think it matchs MoS as its three paragraphs in an article of 23,965 characters but I could be looking in the wrong place so feel free to correct me. Thank you again! :) Lankyant (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion just tagging you so you see it. Lankyant (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is mostly clear and concise
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article mostly complies with MoS in terms on layout and etc.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article provides references to all sources using references section and inline citations (Also: 143 citations? Wow!)
	2b. 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).	Inline citations follow WP:RS Self check: 7, 24, 35, 50, 55, 68, 90, 100, 103, 121, 128, 135, 148 √
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article does not contain any original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Article does not contain any copyright violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article addresses main aspects of the topic in accordance with Wikipedia:Out of scope
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does no stray into unnessesary detail
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article does not give any undue weight to any particular viewpoints
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit warring as far as I can tell
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are appropriately tagged with copyright status
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are appropriately captioned
	7. Overall assessment.	Article meets GA standards. On an unrelated note: great read, learnt a lot

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.