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

Reviewer: HalfGig ( talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:04, 30 January 2017 (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, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):

   Other wiki articles can be used as refs? I thought that a no-no?? See refs 67-70.

   These are just cited to the book as usual, and wikilinked. Added author, date.

   Ref 66 needs a link, date, author, etc

   Done.

   Ref 71 should have page numbers

   Done.

   poss copyvio via earwig's tool: see this. The other site is tripod so I think it copied from wiki. I think there is a process/talk page tag to alleviate concerns but I don't know how to go about it. HalfGig talk 01:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Tripod has clearly made use of Wikipedia quite a while back, leaving out the refs: indeed I believe it habitually does. I've never used Tripod and am not about to start. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 06:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I know and agree. I said it (tripod) probably copied from wiki. I know there is some template you can put on the talk page to say wiki is not the violater but I don't recall what the template name is. Or do we not even need to worry about that? HalfGig talk 11:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

It's fine, everyone can see they copied from us not the other way around. And the overall resemblance to the current text is pretty weak anyway. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 06:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC) reply