Talk:Amazing Grace/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
After a quick scan read through, this article appears to be at or above GA-standard (although I think it is possibly under wikilinked in places). I will now do a more detailed review. It's quite a long article so this might take a day or so; and initially I will only be highlighting "problems", if any. Pyrotec (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pyrotec. Sorry for not responding sooner. I was out of town for some drunken debauchery to initiate the new year. Please let me know what you have to suggest for the article. I appreciate your time and efforts. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you enjoyed your "drunken debauchery". I've read the article once more, in depth and I've added a few wikilinks. I'm going to award it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of this article. I'm awarding it GA-status.

You may wish to consider WP:FAC, I have no personal experience of it (yet), other than several articles that I have reviewed at WP:GAN have quite soon afterwards become FAs, but I suspect that this could be a strong candidate. Pyrotec (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and the review. I wrote it with FAC in mind, but it always helps to have multiple perspectives on what can be improved, or how I can make my writing clearer. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)