Talk:Hubert Brooks/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 11:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

: There were a few minor punctuation errors which I corrected, but other than that, everything is fine with regards to the writing. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

: The article is very well-cited to reputable sources, and I don't see anything which looks like original research. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c) . Not having known anything about Brooks prior to studying this article, I'll assume good faith over the covering of the main aspects - that is to say, I don't think any relevant encyclopedic information that was available in the sources used to build this article up was excluded. Everything is put together well, and no trivial information is present. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

: (a) ; and
 * (b).

. I saw no evidence of bias in the information as presented, anywhere in the article. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC) . Out of 27 edits since July 2nd, 2010, none appear to have been made in an edit war. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC) : The sole image used in the article is used under acceptable fair-use terms involving deceased subjects, and has a valid fair-use rationale and license provided. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

Here's one more accolade for Hubert Brooks - he's now a GA! Congrats, Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)