Talk:Royton/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Review by epicAdam:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Very nice prose. Best I've read for an article undergoing an initial GA nomination.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The demographics section could be expanded a tiny bit more. Just a few more sentence about education, ethnic makeup, etc. would be great.

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:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is truly a fantastic piece of work that is fully worthy of GA status. I'm passing Royton with the expectation that Jza84 or Malleus Fatuorum will be able to add in a sentence more about the demographics of the town. Best, epicAdam (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)