Talk:Edward Elgar/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments edit

I've now read through this article, but have not checked the citations, or the text in any depth. My first impressions are that this is a possible WP:FAC. Nevertheless, this article is a WP:GAN so I will continue my review. As its a comprehensive article, this review is likely to take several days. At this stage I will mostly be highlighting "problems" (if any), so no news is probably good news. Pyrotec (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • I made a couple of changes of "Elgar" to "Edward Elgar" and "Edward", respectively, in the Biography, Early years, subsection's discussion of him, his parents and syblings - "Elgar" did not seem the right identification for one individual in a family named Elgar. However, I did not change all of them. Pyrotec (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Overall summary edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I beleive that this article is a strong candidate for WP:FAC

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    Well referenced
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    Well referenced
    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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    Well illustrated
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Well illustrated
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

I found this an interesting and informative article to review. I'm pleased to be able to grant it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply