Talk:Anton Meyer/GA1

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

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments:
 * As SHO is used later, it should be in parenthesis on the first mention of Senior house officer.
 * Hyphens have been used instead of dashes, see WP:DASH.
 * Overlinking - only wikify once, on the first mention (the lead being an exception).
 * Spelling - particulary.

Summary: There are just some minor issues as outlined above. I will allow up to seven days for these to be rectified, before making any further decision.


 * Thank you very much for your review. I've fixed all the issues highlighted above, with one question - does overlinking apply to the references as well as links in the body of the article? The MOS on linking doesn't seem to address it - I'd assume it's similar to the long table clause, and each reference should be able to stand on its own, but if that's not the case I will of course be happy to change that too. Frickative  21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Final comments: Thank you for all your work in making this a better article. To answer your question, there are no rules that I am aware of for links in the references. As that section is used in such a way where the reader may be hopping to different parts of the section, I think it is not a bad idea to have them repeated. Since all issues have been resolved, I am now confident that the article meets all the requirements of a Good Article, and I am happy to pass it. -- S Masters (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)