Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan/GA1

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

What is a good article?
A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Tick list
1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;  and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;  and (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;  and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;   and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Comments
Doing a GA Sweep.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Prose is readable and informative. The lead section could be developed - it doesn't quite cover the content of the article. It's a not a GA fail, but it needs attention.
 * Content is well sourced and appears to be balanced. There are sections which need sourcing, last two paragraphs of Thespis, last paragraph of Trial of jury, for example. These needs attention, though it's not serious enough to delist.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's informative and neutral.
 * It appears to suffer from the occasional minor IP vandalism - but is not unstable.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Images are OK - public domain.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Article passes GA Sweep.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)