Talk:York/GA2
GA Review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Overall, this article is in excellent shape! I can see that the comments from the previous GA review were taken well, and mostly used to improve the article substantially. So that makes the second review much, much easier! Here's how it stands up against the six
- herefor criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of viewpolicy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
The article also matches up well with, and is overall agreement with, the guidelines of
I also noticed a few sentences were commas should be added to help improve readability. I fixed some of them, but it might help to have someone go through it again and sprinkle a few more about. This is fairly minor though, and not worthy of holding up GA.
Overall, the article is in great shape and can be promoted. Nice work! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)