Talk:British Army/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FriyMan (talk · contribs) 08:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Checked in previous review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Issues addressed in the previous review solved.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Nothing to worry about here.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No dead links, everything is good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article up to date.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	All right.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problem here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very easy to do.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Everything OK
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Everything is relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good job! I am happy to make this article a GA!