Talk:Jesus College, Oxford/GA2

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


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Inital comments

 * After several quick read-throughs this article appears to be at or about GA-standard, and I'm not spotted (yet?) any major "holds"; I'll therefore continue with an in depth review section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * History -
 * Appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.


 * Location and buildings -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears to be compliant.


 * People associated with the college -
 * Appears to be compliant.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Student life & Silverware -
 * These appear to be compliant.

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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

The problems that led to this article being delisted, particularly lack of adequate citations, appear to have been addressed. I'm therefore awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations, on re-acheiving Ga-status. Pyrotec (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)