Talk:Craigmillar Castle/GA1

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial review
A good article, the only "problem" so far is a missing reference for Lindsay.Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maurice Lindsay now added to the bibliography, thanks for spotting. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

GAR
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations. You now have GA.Pyrotec (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)