GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I am starting a GA review of this article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Per request at my talk page, we'll take this at a slower pace. North8000 ( talk) 15:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I fixed a few punctuation errors that were within a quote, by changing two colons to semi-colons. I'm assuming that this was an editing error rather than how they were in the quote. The reference iis off line so I was unable to check it. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What a thorough, expert, well written. informative article! I think that it is 99% ready to pass GA right now. The "1%" is in an area where I'm particularly tough which is empathy for the reader. My thought is that the reader should be able to understand the meaning of the sentence without going to other articles. There are just one, maybe two places where I think that this is not the case. The one is where I think a few words on what "Dumas" is is necessary to understand what the sentence means. I might fix that myself. There might be one more; I'll have a final look. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. What a thorough and well done article! Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I am starting a GA review of this article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Per request at my talk page, we'll take this at a slower pace. North8000 ( talk) 15:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I fixed a few punctuation errors that were within a quote, by changing two colons to semi-colons. I'm assuming that this was an editing error rather than how they were in the quote. The reference iis off line so I was unable to check it. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What a thorough, expert, well written. informative article! I think that it is 99% ready to pass GA right now. The "1%" is in an area where I'm particularly tough which is empathy for the reader. My thought is that the reader should be able to understand the meaning of the sentence without going to other articles. There are just one, maybe two places where I think that this is not the case. The one is where I think a few words on what "Dumas" is is necessary to understand what the sentence means. I might fix that myself. There might be one more; I'll have a final look. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. What a thorough and well done article! Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)