Talk:Hemp in Kentucky/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 16:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
 * B. MoS compliance (included, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources (it also includes an appropriate reference section):
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations):
 * C. No original research:
 * D. No copyright violations:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
 * 1) Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
 * A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
 * 1) Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
 * A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Thank you for your review. It will take me some time to do everything (and I may have some help from a related project). For now I've made the changes to the lede as suggested. Is it permitted to add checkmarks to the review section? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can. Although I've collapsed what has been done. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 23:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope I got all the citation cleanups, there were quite a few and the numbering changed since your review. I hope that accessdate isn't required for Google Books, but if it is I will add those. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For the Google Books, as cite book does not require the parameter I don't think it is needed. As I have no other concern about the article I pass its GA nomination. Good work. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 19:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)