Talk:Concealed shoes/GA2

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply


Should have this one to you by tomorrow. I mainly focus on copyediting issues but given the size of this article I don't think there should be any serious concerns. Thanks! Jaguar 15:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Initial comments

edit

Lead

edit

Background

edit

Location of finds

edit

Explanations

edit

References

edit

On hold

edit

This was a good read, overall a well written article with very few concerns to point out. The only thing standing in the way of it becoming GA is the lead section (and those few minor points I made regarding prose). If the lead can be expanded slightly to include more content on concealed shoes then this should have no problem with passing the GAN. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days until those issues have been addressed. Thanks! Jaguar 17:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Close - promoted

edit

Thank you everyone for your vast improvements to this article, the lead has definitely been improved, the rest of the article is broad and comprehensive, the references are all in check and finally the prose is up to a GA standard. This article now meets the GA criteria, well done on all the extra work! I apologise if I was too sceptical about some things regarding the prose, it all makes sense now. Jaguar 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply