Talk:Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard/GA1

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

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;
 * Yes. Because I am not as familiar with British English grammar, I have assumed that any eccentricities to my eyes are variations from American English.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Yes.

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;
 * Yes.

(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;
 * Yes.

(c) it contains no original research.
 * Yes.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * Yes.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * Yes.

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

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

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;
 * Yes.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Yes.

I see no reason not to consider this a good article. Congratulations. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)