Talk:British Alpine Hannibal Expedition/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none

Linkrot: all external links work without problems

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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:
 * Just a couple of tiny quirks here in the prose which I have amended; otherwise the prose was fine. References and citations are all fine and there is no original research present. The coverage is broad and comprehensive. There is no point of view present. There is significant recent work but it is almost all by the nominator and is all productive. Images check out without problems. Overall, this is a pass, with just a couple of very small problems which I fixed in under a minute. Well done, Stephan, and keep up the good work. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Just a couple of tiny quirks here in the prose which I have amended; otherwise the prose was fine. References and citations are all fine and there is no original research present. The coverage is broad and comprehensive. There is no point of view present. There is significant recent work but it is almost all by the nominator and is all productive. Images check out without problems. Overall, this is a pass, with just a couple of very small problems which I fixed in under a minute. Well done, Stephan, and keep up the good work. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of tiny quirks here in the prose which I have amended; otherwise the prose was fine. References and citations are all fine and there is no original research present. The coverage is broad and comprehensive. There is no point of view present. There is significant recent work but it is almost all by the nominator and is all productive. Images check out without problems. Overall, this is a pass, with just a couple of very small problems which I fixed in under a minute. Well done, Stephan, and keep up the good work. —Cliftonian (talk)</b></b> 14:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)