Talk:Thomas E. Bramlette/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I have made a few copy editing changes which I hope do not alter the meaning. Although short, this is an interesting and comprehensive article, providing much information and meets the GA criteria.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Complies with relevant MoS sections

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

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: Pass

Congratulations! A concise and interesting article.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)