Talk:Leigh, Greater Manchester/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Initial comments[edit]
This looks like a comprehensive, well-referenced (and well-illustrated) article, so its probably GA-class. However, I will now do a detailed section by section review, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: The "Townships" subsection in History appears to be in out-of-date-sequence as it is followed by "Early history" and then the "Industrial revolution", but perhaps it is intended to serve to introduce the geometry of the area. I will leave making any decision on this until much later in the review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Overall summary[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, wide-ranging article on the history of Leigh; at or above GA-standard.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status. I think it has a fair to reasonable chance of making it through WP:FAC, but (there is a BUT!):
- In my oppinon, in the History section, the sequencing and the subsection titles will need some minor attention at FAC level:
- The "Early history" logically aught to come before the "Township" subsection.
- The Early history section contains Neolithic, bronze-age and Roman material; but it also contains 17th Century English Civil War material which post-dates some of the 16th material in the following "Industrial revolution" subsection.
This is rather "nit picking" at GA-level; so I'm not taking it in to consideration in granting GA-status. Congratulations on acheiving GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)