Jump to content

Talk:Murphy Pakiam/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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overrall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    You need to check your wikilinks; I've corrected a couple that went to disambig pages, but there are another couple or so.
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well referenced.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well referenced.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time in reviewing this, and for your assessment. I have looked at the disambiguation issues and have resolved one. The last remaining one, parish priest, should not really be a disambiguation page. I will change it and start a new article on the topic in the next week as it deserves a page in its own right (with a link to the novel). Thanks so much again. - S Masters (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]