Talk:2011 Grand National/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Puffin  ''Let's talk! 19:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct? ✅ - No issues

2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation? ✅ - No issues

3. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout? ✅ - No issues

4. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines? ✅ - No issues

5. It contains no original research? ✅ - No issues

6. It addresses the main aspects of the topic? ✅ - Very good

7. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? ✅ - Not too much detail I suppose

8. It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each? ✅ -

9. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute? - Looking at the history, there are a few disputes.

10. Illustrated, if possible, by images: ✅

(a) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content? ✅ - All images fine.

(b) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions? ✅

Pass or fail? ✅ Pass because of second opinion.

2nd Opinion
An IP inserting unsourced material is not an editing dispute. I have reverted them. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)