Talk:Hugh Culverhouse/GA2

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

Reviewer: Wikipedian2 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing using the following criteria : Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2] -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.-

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; -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.- (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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[3] -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.- and (c) it contains no original research. -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.-

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[4] and -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.-

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5] -MEETS THIS CRITERIA.-

Illustrated, if possible, by images:[6] -FAILED THIS CRITERIA.-

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[7]

Unfortunately at this time, I cannot accept this as a Good Article. The reason for this is that it does not contain an image. Once an image is added, you may resubmit. Thank-you. Wikipedian2 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)