GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 ( talk) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Very readable. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | . |
![]() |
2b. 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). | Primarily; see comments below. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | All comments addressed. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Flagged image removed. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Very. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
This is a well-researched article about a notable historical figure and I thank you for contributing it to Wikipedia. This article is for the most part well-written and is very well sourced, and I don't see any major problems that would prevent promotion in the next few days. I do have some relatively minor concerns, which include: LT910001 ( talk) 08:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll conduct a more thorough read-through when the concerns above are addressed. Cheers, LT910001 ( talk) 08:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
With changes made, I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done and I wish you well on your wiki-travels! LT910001 ( talk) 09:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 ( talk · contribs) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 ( talk) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Very readable. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | . |
![]() |
2b. 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). | Primarily; see comments below. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | All comments addressed. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Flagged image removed. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Very. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
This is a well-researched article about a notable historical figure and I thank you for contributing it to Wikipedia. This article is for the most part well-written and is very well sourced, and I don't see any major problems that would prevent promotion in the next few days. I do have some relatively minor concerns, which include: LT910001 ( talk) 08:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll conduct a more thorough read-through when the concerns above are addressed. Cheers, LT910001 ( talk) 08:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
With changes made, I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done and I wish you well on your wiki-travels! LT910001 ( talk) 09:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)