Talk:Anton Meyer/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- 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:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments:
- As SHO is used later, it should be in parenthesis on the first mention of Senior house officer.
- Hyphens have been used instead of dashes, see WP:DASH.
- Overlinking - only wikify once, on the first mention (the lead being an exception).
- Spelling - particulary.
Summary: There are just some minor issues as outlined above. I will allow up to seven days for these to be rectified, before making any further decision.
- Thank you very much for your review. I've fixed all the issues highlighted above, with one question - does overlinking apply to the references as well as links in the body of the article? The MOS on linking doesn't seem to address it - I'd assume it's similar to the long table clause, and each reference should be able to stand on its own, but if that's not the case I will of course be happy to change that too. Frickative 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Final comments: Thank you for all your work in making this a better article. To answer your question, there are no rules that I am aware of for links in the references. As that section is used in such a way where the reader may be hopping to different parts of the section, I think it is not a bad idea to have them repeated. Since all issues have been resolved, I am now confident that the article meets all the requirements of a Good Article, and I am happy to pass it. -- S Masters (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)