Talk:John Edward Brownlee/GA1

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see What is a good article?)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Notes
 * All 15 images public domain
 * In 'UGG director', they were functionally identical to it - please clarify who 'they' and 'it' are referring to.
 * Done. Steve Smith (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In Electoral record, % to the second decimal place is probably not a needed level of accuracy (14.85% could be 14.9%).
 * The article is very good. The prose is clear and the references are all fine. It is certainly broad, and is focused on the subject the entire way through. -maclean (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)