From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 ( talk · contribs) 21:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm starting this review now. I make no claim to know anything about Grahame Clark, so please forgive me if I seem incredibly stupid on some topics

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):
  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:
looks good. Approving