Talk:Alexander Stoddart/GA1

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

Reviewer: SMasters (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * There are quite a number of minor problems with the prose, mainly to do with punctuation. I suggest you have a third-party cast an eye on it or seek assistance from WP:GOCE/REQ. Although not required for a GA, it would be nice to have compliance with MOS:NUM as well as WP:DASH. John Simpson is a dab, and http://www.adamsmith.org/the-adam-smith-statue/ is a dead link.
 * The prose is much improved and mistakes have been fixed. The dab and dead link have also been fixed. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * A citation is needed for "Stoddart has also worked on busts of living figures he admires, including Roger Scruton and Tony Benn."
 * Citation fixed. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A citation is needed for "Stoddart has also worked on busts of living figures he admires, including Roger Scruton and Tony Benn."
 * Citation fixed. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All issues have been fixed, and I am now confident that the article complies with the requirements for a GA. As such, I am happy to pass this. I would also like to mention Ktlynch and Mannafredo, who have both worked to improve the article.Well done. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from my first edit, which I bitterly regret (putting the boot into him for perceived snub of Bill MacLaren), I have done little more than fix typos and stuff. It really is largely down to KT and others. Mannafredo (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All issues have been fixed, and I am now confident that the article complies with the requirements for a GA. As such, I am happy to pass this. I would also like to mention Ktlynch and Mannafredo, who have both worked to improve the article.Well done. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from my first edit, which I bitterly regret (putting the boot into him for perceived snub of Bill MacLaren), I have done little more than fix typos and stuff. It really is largely down to KT and others. Mannafredo (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All issues have been fixed, and I am now confident that the article complies with the requirements for a GA. As such, I am happy to pass this. I would also like to mention Ktlynch and Mannafredo, who have both worked to improve the article.Well done. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from my first edit, which I bitterly regret (putting the boot into him for perceived snub of Bill MacLaren), I have done little more than fix typos and stuff. It really is largely down to KT and others. Mannafredo (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)