Talk:Coat of arms of England/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay: a bad case of wiki apathy, but I've recovered sufficiently. I've now had a quick read through of the article and it appears to be a strong GAN. I suspect that it would gain GA-status this time round without too much work. Tomorrow I will start my detailed review, but leading the WP:Lead until last.Pyrotec (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Congratulations on acheiving GA. Pyrotec (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I'm awarding this article GA-status.
 * Based on its current status as a well-referenced and suitable illustrated article, I beleive that in due course it might be considered suitable for WP:FAC, but I would recommend at least one WP:PR to gain constructive comments from a number of editors.
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I'm awarding this article GA-status.
 * Based on its current status as a well-referenced and suitable illustrated article, I beleive that in due course it might be considered suitable for WP:FAC, but I would recommend at least one WP:PR to gain constructive comments from a number of editors.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I'm awarding this article GA-status.
 * Based on its current status as a well-referenced and suitable illustrated article, I beleive that in due course it might be considered suitable for WP:FAC, but I would recommend at least one WP:PR to gain constructive comments from a number of editors.
 * Based on its current status as a well-referenced and suitable illustrated article, I beleive that in due course it might be considered suitable for WP:FAC, but I would recommend at least one WP:PR to gain constructive comments from a number of editors.