Talk:James Acaster/GA1

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 11:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this review, which will count towards the WikiCup and current backlog drive. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * See.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * See.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The images of the Taskmaster building and of Rosenstock seem to fall under WP:DECOR, to my mind.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The images of the Taskmaster building and of Rosenstock seem to fall under WP:DECOR, to my mind.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Excellently written article. Just a minor image issue above. Hope the spotchecks don't go badly. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on, ! I think strictly speaking it's more MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE than WP:DECOR for images (not icons), but point taken and I've removed both of those images. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks

 * 14 good
 * 29 good
 * 61 good
 * 66 good
 * 72 good
 * 76 good
 * 86 good
 * 107 good
 * 126 good
 * 127 good
 * 137 good
 * 158 good

Cracking job. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)