Talk:Murder of Robert Eric Wone/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Dana boomer in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I'll be conducted the GA review for this article and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- The sentence in the lead beginning "Three residents of the home where Wone was found..." seems a little awkward. The middle clause of the sentence "where Wone was believed to be..." seems out of place. Can this be reworded at all?
- Reworded. Seem better now? Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Ref 33 (Chibbaro Jr., Lou) deadlinks.
- Unessential, removed. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- References should not be left as bare links (i.e. #21) and should have publishers, not just works (i.e., Ref 23 should include Fox Television Stations, Inc., not just MyFoxDC.com)
- Done. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Overall a nice article. There are a couple of reference issues and one comment on prose, so I am placing this review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- No questions. Please have a look and see if I've addressed your concerns appropriately. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response! Dana boomer (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
