Talk:1314–1316 papal conclave/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is not all-inclusive; the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not introduce it (the lead should be sufficient to understand the topic and its outcome without reading the rest). The outcome is not mentioned in the summary. Otherwise the article is well written, with good prose and in line with the Manual of Style.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The list of electors is not sourced, neither is the last paragraph of the "aftermath" section.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * User "upright" syntax with portrait (tall) images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is on hold until the issues mentioned are resolved. Arsenikk (talk)  14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After two and a half weeks the issues have not been seen to, so I am forced to fail the article as good. A shame, since there was so little to, and unfortunately I do not have the knowledge to fix them all. Arsenikk (talk)  14:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is on hold until the issues mentioned are resolved. Arsenikk (talk)  14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After two and a half weeks the issues have not been seen to, so I am forced to fail the article as good. A shame, since there was so little to, and unfortunately I do not have the knowledge to fix them all. Arsenikk (talk)  14:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)