Talk:Bath Abbey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jamietw (talk · contribs · count) 15:54, 27 September 2011 (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.	Written well with spelling correct in British English.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good use of headings.
	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.	All sources referenced.
	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).	Good use of inline citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No Original Research found in article.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This artice expresses all the main points about the history, architecture and uses of the abbey.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article explains about the abbey in an informative and comprehensive way without going off topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article is not biased towards any aspect of the Abbey.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars, at least not in recent history.
	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 all tagged with their copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are on-topic and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is a well balenced article with a good use of references and images and is well-formatted and written clearly and neutrally. I see no reason why I cannot pass it as a Good Article. To improve try reducing the amount of red links especially in the Organ Section. Jamietw (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)