Talk:Brough Castle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * The castle was finally restored in the late 17th century Um, it wasn't finally restored, and it wasn't the late 17th century. Re-phrase.
 * The castle was finally restored in the late 17th century Um, it wasn't finally restored, and it wasn't the late 17th century. Re-phrase.


 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * three disambig links:
 * Cobble
 * River Eden
 * Wark Castle
 * Wark Castle


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Where you have a URL, no need an accessdate
 * Where you have a URL, no need an accessdate
 * Where you have a URL, no need an accessdate


 * 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:
 * All pictures have appropriate rationales
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * All pictures have appropriate rationales
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Hopefully all done now - thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)