Talk:Edward Burne-Jones/GA1

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Initial review
Overall the article is well illustrated, appears comprehensive in scope; and appears to be at GA level. I will be looking at it in more detail today & tomorrow. I suspect that there will be a few minor niggle's, possibly on WP:verify, for instance Honours from Oxford and the Birmingham Society of Artists have no citations; and the "Influence" subsection has only one citation. Pyrotec (talk) 08:10, 5 October 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. I'm awarding GA status. 20:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU!!! I'll address those missing citations listed in 2A; they were here when I started the expansion, but as you said they should be easily verifiable.  - PKM (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)