Talk:1996 Manchester bombing/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Starting review (tomorrow). Pyrotec (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments
I found three fairly minor "problems", one of which I corrected; presumably, they were kindly left for me to pick up during the review.

I also stopped and paused to think about the "largest device detonated in Great Britain during peacetime". That (in view of the citation) I presume is a summary taken directly from King 2006 and was contrasting the modern day British mainland against WW I and WW II. Looking at Parachute mine, it appears that Germany dropped devices of that size. I'm therefore merely noting this comment, but do not require any response.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article: I assume PR and FAC will follow soon?