Talk:2019 British prorogation controversy/GA1

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

Reviewer: SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk · contribs) 17:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi PoliceSheep99 I'm happy to review. Let me just give it a read through. Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How I review is go through section by section, note my comments and various suggestions. I'll also make minor edits if I see spelling errors etc.

Intro

 * 'in the end' felt a little informal, so I changed it to 'following political opposition'
 * No other issues

Background
Done very well. No issues here.

Remainder

 * The remainder is all written well.
 * I suggest that you add in some more subheadings (under the main headings). This should allow for easier navigation.

Images

 * All good here.

Overall

 * A great article. If the above can be addressed, this is definitely GA material! :) SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Nominator's Comment
I've followed your comments. Is anything else required. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All good! Let me just go through the review now. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Review
Hi PoliceSheep99. My review is attached. Enjoy the GA!


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Note
Hi PoliceSheep99. Just to add, there's currently a bit of a backlog with GA nominations... It would be great if you could help reduce some of these by reviewing other nominations. Wikipedia tries to get a 2 noms reviews per one you put out. If you don't have the time, that's also totally fine! Enjoy the GA though :) SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd love to get involved but I'm really not sure how. Any tips of how to get started? PoliceSheep99 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

. Sure. The general criteria are under Good article criteria. When reviewing, I generally have a read through, later going through each section of the article (as well as images and references) and make some suggestions for improvement based on the guideline. Once those are made, I use the review template shown above to go through the criteria. In the source text, the code "" can be changed from y to n or blank to show wether the criteria has been fulfilled. All the unreviewed nominations are found at Good article nominations; some instructions can also be found at Good article nominations/Instructions. Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)