Talk:Central Saint Giles/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * See References section below. Shearonink (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Issues fixed. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran copyvio tool and found no problems. Shearonink (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I like the fact that the writer/s gave the history of the location, not just the present structures built there. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I like the fact that the writer/s gave the history of the location, not just the present structures built there. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I like the fact that the writer/s gave the history of the location, not just the present structures built there. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)