Talk:Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks very good so far. I want to check the manual of style criteria though. And give a bit of time for comments from other people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
I'd like to see the references and notes separated, I'll do this myself tomorrow.
Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Something (say a sentence or two) on the metropolitan line would be good in the section "Move to public ownership".Retracting as it looks fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
After doing a full history search and seeing that the vast majority of edits are by the nominator and its been a couple of days, I'm passing this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)