Talk:Hermeneutic style/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I peer reviewed this article, but have had no other input to it, and do not believe I am compromised as a GAN reviewer. Beginning first GAN read-through. More soonest. –  Tim riley  talk    20:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Truth to tell I'm surprised to see this article at GAN. If I'd been the main author I'd have haled it off to FAC straight after the peer review. Still, as it's here, there is no difficulty in promoting it. It meets all the GA criteria, in my judgment, and it is a pleasure to make its acquaintance again. I shall, I hope, have to read it once again – when it gets to FAC, but that will be no hardship. –  Tim riley  talk    23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)