Talk:Edinburgh town walls/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
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:

An interesting and informative article. There is a bit of information: in Stevenson, Sylvia; Simpson, Anne Turner and Holmes, Nicholas (1981). Historical Edinburgh, Canongate & Leith: the archaeological implications of development. Scottish Burgh Survey. Ancient Monuments Inspectorate, Scottish Development Department, that could you could possibly add to this article; but there is nothing that appears to contradict what you have in the article.

Notwithstanding the above comment, this article is compliant with the requirments for GA; so I'm awarding GA-status. Congratulations on acheiving GA. Pyrotec (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)