Talk:Adam Newman/GA1

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

Reviewer: BrickHouse337 (talk · contribs) 02:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Fairly well written. While the Guild of Copyeditors have yet to visit the page, the general grammar seems okay for now.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Looks fine; all of the sources are reliable and verifiable; good job.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Fairly well covered as far as focus.
 * 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:
 * Overall, the article is actually in good article condition. There are still areas of improvement, however, all articles should always have room for improvement, regardless of their status. Copyediting doesn't necessarily have to be done by the Guild, but as long as a request is there, it should get done soon or later. Pass. --Brick House 337 14:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, the article is actually in good article condition. There are still areas of improvement, however, all articles should always have room for improvement, regardless of their status. Copyediting doesn't necessarily have to be done by the Guild, but as long as a request is there, it should get done soon or later. Pass. --Brick House 337 14:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)