Talk:Bal maiden/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
On this basis of a very quick read of this article, I anticipate that it should gain GA-status by the end of this review. I'm now going to work my way through the article, but leaving any consideration of the WP:lead until the end.

This stage is looking for "problems, so content of this section is going to be mostly about problems, if any. Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Background -
 * This section looks OK.

....Stopping at this point. To be continued (tomorrow). Pyrotec (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mechanisation and the 18th century copper boom -
 * This section looks OK.


 * Industrialisation and the 19th century copper boom -
 * This section looks OK.


 * Total numbers, Typical work -
 * These two subsections look OK.


 * Working conditions -
 * This subsections looks OK.


 * Decline -
 * This section looks OK.


 * WP:Lead -
 * This section looks OK.

Pyrotec (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria An informative and well-referenced article.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * 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:
 * 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Well illustrated.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm delighted to be able to award this article GA-status. I believe that could be a strong candidate for WP:FAC. Pyrotec (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)