Talk:Francis Gleeson (priest)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 20:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, most on Monday, but I will be mindful of the nominator's comment that they are only able to address concerns on weekends. Canadian  Paul  20:57, 19 February 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Definitely meets the Good Article criteria, as there were only one or two minor issues that I fixed up myself. This is the first GA I've ever passed without putting on hold first, so congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian  Paul  16:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)