Talk:September Morn/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 18:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

The article is very well written, well-structured, and organized. I'm in fact deeply impressed with its layout. If I had to guess... (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article hosts a very healthy bibliography of reliable third-party sources. After taking a few minutes to review the lacing of citations, I am confident that they are well-applied, and leaving nothing to chance where verifiability is concerned. If I had to guess... (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article definitely seems to cover all relevant aspects of the topic for which information of encyclopedic value is available. None of the information incorporated appears trivial or excessive. If I had to guess... (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

For such a controversial topic, this article nonetheless efficiently handles the job of discussing the subject without bias. If I had to guess... (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article has not been the subject of any edit warring at least since late September, according to the most recent revisions in its history. "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The article is very well illustrated, and all images look to be validly licensed. They are from Wikimedia Commons, so I'm pretty sure fair use rules are being obeyed here as well. "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Thanks, I'll be waiting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wilhelmina Will, any news? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article over and comparing its content to the criteria for GAs, I am certain the criteria is met, and am therefore passing the article. If I had to guess... (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WW. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]