Talk:Craig Bellamy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 19:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: apologies for the delay - the article is rather long. Should be done tomorrow though. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead sufficiently covers the article. Written immaculately - I only found one typo, and those can't be avoided.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * A large number of suitable references. The ones I checked clearly mentioned the information written by author.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Stays focused and covers pretty much everything.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Currently stable. Edit war on 20 June 2019 - appears to have been resolved.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Suitable used with good captions. Appropriate credit given to author. Could do with a few more images, but sufficient for criteria.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Very well written, sufficiently verified covering the player's career. Well done!
 * Very well written, sufficiently verified covering the player's career. Well done!