Talk:Abe Waddington/GA1

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

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * An excellent piece of work. Immaculately written, well-referenced and clearly well-researched. It's thorough, very focussed without going into excessive detail. I've made a few minor changes, mainly to a few manual of style points, adding or changing a couple of wikilinks and just brushed up one or two parts of the text. There was one disambig link but I've fixed it; there are no broken external links. The only obvious point to address is the lack of images. If there any images available from newspapers or in books, they may be useable because copyright has possibly now lapsed - I'm not sure whether you can find such images mind. After making only a few minor changes, I will pass the article. Good luck with any future work on the article. Brad78 (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * An excellent piece of work. Immaculately written, well-referenced and clearly well-researched. It's thorough, very focussed without going into excessive detail. I've made a few minor changes, mainly to a few manual of style points, adding or changing a couple of wikilinks and just brushed up one or two parts of the text. There was one disambig link but I've fixed it; there are no broken external links. The only obvious point to address is the lack of images. If there any images available from newspapers or in books, they may be useable because copyright has possibly now lapsed - I'm not sure whether you can find such images mind. After making only a few minor changes, I will pass the article. Good luck with any future work on the article. Brad78 (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An excellent piece of work. Immaculately written, well-referenced and clearly well-researched. It's thorough, very focussed without going into excessive detail. I've made a few minor changes, mainly to a few manual of style points, adding or changing a couple of wikilinks and just brushed up one or two parts of the text. There was one disambig link but I've fixed it; there are no broken external links. The only obvious point to address is the lack of images. If there any images available from newspapers or in books, they may be useable because copyright has possibly now lapsed - I'm not sure whether you can find such images mind. After making only a few minor changes, I will pass the article. Good luck with any future work on the article. Brad78 (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)