Talk:History of Galveston, Texas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

After a quick couple of read-throughs this article has the appearance of a good article: it appears to be well-referenced and well illustrated.

I will now do a more detailed check against WP:WIAGA, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. This might take a day or so; and during that time I will highlight below any "problems" that need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will respond to any problems or issues. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a few rather minor problems, which are mentioned below. In view of this I'm going straight to an overall summary.

• Exploration and settlement' -

• Ref 1 is a broken web link. (fixed Postoak (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

• Notes -

• Refs 26 & 32 refer to Hardwick (2002), but that citation is undefined.(fixed Postoak (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Pyrotec (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A well-written, comprehensive, well-referenced, well-llustrated article.

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:

   Eell-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-llustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well-llustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Although there were three very minor problems, the overall standard of the article is such that it is compliant with WP:WIAGA. I'm therefore awarding the article GA-status. Congratulations on the quality of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)