Talk:Norwich War Memorial/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Chris troutman in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- There's no evidence of COPYVIO;
I'll be looking for plagiarism while I'm going through the sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)All good here. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- There's no evidence of COPYVIO;
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Editing has been slow since December; certianly no edit warring here. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- All images are CC-licensed. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Captions are fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- This is a well-done article and the first where I didn't have a laundry list of issues to be fixed. I only had the delay of waiting for the inter-library loan books arriving. Other than that, everything is as it ought to be. I would recommend using {{GBP}} in the future so that it allows conversion to other currencies where appropriate as well as depicting how much a pound sterling in 1927 costs now. I'd also have preferred use of {{Sfn}} with many of these citations. Neither of those suggestions matter for this review but I'd fix those ahead of a MILHIST A-class review. I did also notice that the geo-coordinates are about 100ft off but I guess that can't be helped. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
