Talk:Paul S. Walsh/GA1

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

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 12:36, 2 May 2012 (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):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    I cleaned up the references. Some small fixes need to be made before I resume:
    External links: "Independent article September 2005" is dead
    I removed it as I was unable to find an archive.--GoPTCN 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    How reliable is ref 24?--GoPTCN 11:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    I removed the references as the prior reference contains that information.--GoPTCN 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    The title in ref 4 is missing. As I don't have access to The Times you have to edit it.--GoPTCN 11:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, fixed.--GoPTCN 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Not sure if the mention of his favourite beer is not trivial, but I skip it
  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: