Talk:Santa María de Óvila/GA1

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

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    In this endeavor, the king was following a general strategy of establishing white Catholic institutions in land he had recently won in battle from the Moors of Iberia I know that Cistercians were called "white friars", in the UK, at least, but this reads as a race distinction.  Done
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    References appear OK, the newspaper articles need the work parameter, e.g. LA times, SF weekly; books need page numbers.
  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:  
    Ok just a few points, on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
    OK that fixes it. I am happy to list this. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA Fixes

edit