Talk:Nuisance in English law/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 04:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 04:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Article passes quick-fail assessment; main review to follow. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 04:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
Well written. Not overly technical or held down by legal "jargon".
b (MoS):
Conforms to manual of style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
Well referenced.
b (citations to reliable sources):
Citations are to third party publications. There is also a good variety of sources employed.
c (OR):
No evidence of OR.
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.
b (focused):
Remains focused. No digressions.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
No issues concerning POV evident.
It is stable:
No edit wars etc.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
Images are properly tagged and justified.
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images are accompanied by contextual captions. "Alt" text added to images.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: PASS ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 05:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]