Talk:Gary Hobbs/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zippybonzo (talk · contribs) 19:17, 7 January 2024 (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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I would prefer if the works cited section was in the main references section using CS1 styling, however it functions fine without.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * While the article doesn't have many images to illustrate it, the article is good quality and therefore is being promoted to a good article.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * While the article doesn't have many images to illustrate it, the article is good quality and therefore is being promoted to a good article.
 * While the article doesn't have many images to illustrate it, the article is good quality and therefore is being promoted to a good article.