Talk:J. T. White/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Title in cite 1 should be capitalized to match other cites.
It is capitalized as per the source. Are you sure that is not correct? Usually, unless the source is all caps, I use the same as the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles. People, especially journalists, are getting very sloppy about capitalization in article titles. Keep it in mind for any other nominations you might have in progress, especially for FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. I shutter to think of how many refs I should go back and change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but remember that it's not critical at GAR, but only definitely so at FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
You can't find a picture, even a fair-use one?

Fair use photograph cropped from 1947 Michigan team photograph has been added. Cbl62 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass or Fail: