Jump to content

Talk:Edmund Evans/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi. I will be reviewing this article. I have read it through and think that it is a wonderful piece of work. I will check through the GA criteria carefully in the next day or two to give you a complete review. Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 23:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • I disambiguated the link to Cruckshank. I hope I picked the right one.
  • The article is a little confusing to me over the issue of types of engraving. For example when it says "wood-engraver", does it mean woodcut? Or possibly Wood engraving?

(I will be adding to the comments as I read through the article again.)

GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Wording is clear. There is a lot of information in a small amount of text so it requires careful reading. I would use more commas than you do, but when I tried adding some, it didn't read as well.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Article is well sourced. I see no original research.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article remains focused on the subject but covers the relevant areas.
  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):
    The images are beautiful and all are in the Public Domain.
  7. Overall: A wonderful, concise article
    Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! I really enjoyed the article. Xtzou (Talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]