From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abbotsford Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fredddie ( talk · contribs) 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I will review the article shortly. – Fredddie 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead seems a little short. There is a long history section yet there is only one sentence of history in the lead.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Overall pretty good, but I think the lead needs to reflect the length of the history section. – Fredddie 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply

 Done - Has been expanded, if you think it requires further expansion let me know (and some pointers of what needs more focus) -- Nbound ( talk) 04:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply

That's more like it. Passing now. – Fredddie 04:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abbotsford Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fredddie ( talk · contribs) 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I will review the article shortly. – Fredddie 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead seems a little short. There is a long history section yet there is only one sentence of history in the lead.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Overall pretty good, but I think the lead needs to reflect the length of the history section. – Fredddie 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply

 Done - Has been expanded, if you think it requires further expansion let me know (and some pointers of what needs more focus) -- Nbound ( talk) 04:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply

That's more like it. Passing now. – Fredddie 04:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook