Talk:Henry Wells (general)/GA1

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

Well written
a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct - A few little problems here and there, but most have been fixed and there's nothing serious. b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation - Yes

Factually accurate and verifiable
a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout - yes b) 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 - yes c)it contains no original research. - yes

Broad in its coverage
a)it addresses the main aspects of the topic - Yes, no major issues left unaddressed b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail - Yes

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
Yes

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

Illustrated, if possible, by images:
a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content : Everything appears to be in order. b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. - Yes

Result
No serious outstanding issues. Pass. Cool3 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)