From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Gary Hobbs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zippybonzo ( talk · contribs) 19:17, 7 January 2024 (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, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
    I would prefer if the works cited section was in the main references section using CS1 styling, however it functions fine without.
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    While the article doesn't have many images to illustrate it, the article is good quality and therefore is being promoted to a good article.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.