Talk:John Edward Brownlee/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Notes

• All 15 images public domain
• In 'UGG director', they were functionally identical to it - please clarify who 'they' and 'it' are referring to.

• Done. Steve Smith (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• In Electoral record, % to the second decimal place is probably not a needed level of accuracy (14.85% could be 14.9%).

• The article is very good. The prose is clear and the references are all fine. It is certainly broad, and is focused on the subject the entire way through. -maclean (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)