Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I've never before done a review but I imagine I'll be doing to review in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.
When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --
Aaroncrick (
talk)
10:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Without even looking closely several claims are unsupported.
Done * Referencing needs to be changed to 'Notes' and the books need to be put into 'References'. Check out York Park to see what I mean. Also once you've done that the book ref in the article should be made shorter, as the would have already been listed in full in 'References'. Use this format <ref name="Ponting22">Richardson (2002), p. 22.</ref> Aaroncrick ( talk) 11:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Look fine. Aaroncrick ( talk) 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Will be passing the article. Well done. Aaroncrick ( talk) 10:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I've never before done a review but I imagine I'll be doing to review in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.
When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out --
Aaroncrick (
talk)
10:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Without even looking closely several claims are unsupported.
Done * Referencing needs to be changed to 'Notes' and the books need to be put into 'References'. Check out York Park to see what I mean. Also once you've done that the book ref in the article should be made shorter, as the would have already been listed in full in 'References'. Use this format <ref name="Ponting22">Richardson (2002), p. 22.</ref> Aaroncrick ( talk) 11:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Look fine. Aaroncrick ( talk) 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Will be passing the article. Well done. Aaroncrick ( talk) 10:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)