GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I'll start the review tomorrow. I'm impressed at first reading to find only one typo, which I think "Brredon Books" probably is. More tomorrow. Tim riley ( talk) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Second preliminary comment: there are five links to disambiguation pages that you need to link directly to the intended articles, viz Culloden, Kirkham, Edmund Calamy, Fort William and Paschal lamb. Tim riley ( talk) 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I have read this article twice through with a critical eye and find very little indeed to quibble at. I don't think I shall have to linger long before passing it for GA. The images are good, but lack alt text, which I should like to see before cutting the ceremonial tape, though this is not a prerequisite of GA. Tim riley ( talk) 14:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Alas, no response.
Tim riley (
talk)
14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
On inquiring into the strange silence I see that the nominator had been indefinitely blocked from editing. I think the article is of GA standard, and I am happy to make the few changes suggested above, but I should like another reviewer's comments first. Tim riley ( talk) 08:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Taking account of the views expressed above, I accept that a little more work is needed before the article is of GA standard. I am therefore minded to fail it this time round, on the basis that though on the whole it meets the standard for references there are enough exceptions to disqualify it. I'll leave this page open for a day or so for any further comments. Tim riley ( talk) 19:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to all for contributions, above. I have failed the nomination. I think it is clear from the above what needs to be done before a second nomination in due course. Tim riley ( talk) 09:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I'll start the review tomorrow. I'm impressed at first reading to find only one typo, which I think "Brredon Books" probably is. More tomorrow. Tim riley ( talk) 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Second preliminary comment: there are five links to disambiguation pages that you need to link directly to the intended articles, viz Culloden, Kirkham, Edmund Calamy, Fort William and Paschal lamb. Tim riley ( talk) 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I have read this article twice through with a critical eye and find very little indeed to quibble at. I don't think I shall have to linger long before passing it for GA. The images are good, but lack alt text, which I should like to see before cutting the ceremonial tape, though this is not a prerequisite of GA. Tim riley ( talk) 14:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Alas, no response.
Tim riley (
talk)
14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
On inquiring into the strange silence I see that the nominator had been indefinitely blocked from editing. I think the article is of GA standard, and I am happy to make the few changes suggested above, but I should like another reviewer's comments first. Tim riley ( talk) 08:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Taking account of the views expressed above, I accept that a little more work is needed before the article is of GA standard. I am therefore minded to fail it this time round, on the basis that though on the whole it meets the standard for references there are enough exceptions to disqualify it. I'll leave this page open for a day or so for any further comments. Tim riley ( talk) 19:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to all for contributions, above. I have failed the nomination. I think it is clear from the above what needs to be done before a second nomination in due course. Tim riley ( talk) 09:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)