Talk:Lord of Scoundrels/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 11:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Ruby2010: This is my 22nd GA review, but it's the first one i've been able to pass immediately instead of placing on hold while flaws and concerns are addressed. You clearly know what you're doing. Well done. I'm passing this now, though I do have two minor queries. Firstly I don't see the purpose of your inline citation in the lead, when the information is clearly referenced in the body. Secondly why does the actual book when cited only use an ISBN10, when all the others use ISBN13s? Freikorp (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for reviewing! I have added the lengthened version of the ISBN. Per WP:LEADCITE, I left the inline citation there since it is supporting a direct quote. Thanks again! Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]