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

Reviewer: Shearonink ( talk · contribs) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink ( talk) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the 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:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The dates of the references are presented in at least two different formats - they should be in agreement. Shearonink ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

   Adjusted to my satisfaction. Shearonink ( talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The following references have apparently gone bad:

   Ref #24/raib.gov.uk is dead.

   Ref #2/surreymirror.co.uk is dead. Shearonink ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

   I have no idea why the Checklinks tool is giving a false positive on Ref #2. All is well, moving on. Shearonink ( talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply

   C. It contains no original research:

   Everything is well-referenced. Shearonink ( talk) 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Copyvio tool found no problems. Shearonink ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   This is a straightforward, factual article that maintains a NPOV. Shearonink ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

5. Is it stable?

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

   No edit-warring :). Shearonink ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The photos all look fantastic! Shearonink ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I cannot proceed with this Review until the referencing issues are corrected. Shearonink ( talk) 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Shearonink: Thanks for taking on the review. I have introduced a consistent date format in the references and also fixed the dead link in ref #24; however ref #2 (surreymirror) seems to be live for me. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 22:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Jcc: I see that Ref 2 is fine. I am passing this article to WP:GA status. Shearonink ( talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply