Talk:Connie Talbot's Holiday Magic/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Moisejp in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 06:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article for GA in the next few days. Moisejp (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Well written.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    The references are all reliable sources. I looked at all of the online ones and the info stated in the article checked out.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    It is satisfactorily broad in its coverage.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Both good and bad reviews included.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    No edit wars. Stable.
  6. 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):  
    The one image used has a proper fair use rationale.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Rather than bringing up any minor issues here, I made a number of small copy edits to clean them up. There were three dead links, but I replaced one, and the other two didn't seem necessary (see my edit summaries). I am very happy to pass this article. Good job. Moisejp (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply