Talk:Adam Pardy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly for someone who has shuttled several Flames through the GA process, there wasn't much to do with this article. I made a few minor grammatical changes, and other little things that didn't require any judgement.

Full review below, congrats on the article.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Piped a few links to make the flow within a sentence better.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Fixed one reference that wasn't displaying the access date correctly.
 * 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:
 * Congrats on the article, easy to read and no major issues.
 * Thank you, and thanks for the review! Resolute 23:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Congrats on the article, easy to read and no major issues.
 * Thank you, and thanks for the review! Resolute 23:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)