Talk:John Thomas North/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There is no such thing as a unambiguous "ton". There are tonnes, long tons and short tones. Which one was there 3,000 of? An article about Chilean business should default to metric values. With the presumed significance level I have converted to "tonnes" (please fix if it is wrong).
 * The book just specifies tons. It is an American publication so I assume it is working in US (short) tons.  I have changed the article accordingly.  I will try to fix the other things you have pointed out tomorrow, many thanks for taking the time to review this article - Dumelow (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are too few commas.
 * Sorry, I can never seem to get my commas right (I am always picked up at GA/FA for too few/too many), I will try to take a look through and add some more if I get the time - Dumelow (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Use ISO-codes with links for currencies
 * Done - Dumelow (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume that the $10 million is US dollars, so please correct me if I am wrong. Of course, there is no way to know for certain, so it is important to state the currency.
 * You are correct, thanks - Dumelow (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand: "£40,000 of the 250,000 belgium franc". Did he provide 40,000 francs or pounds. I presume these are pounds sterling, but that also needs to be stated.
 * He provided £40k of the BEF250,000 investment, it's a bit annoying that it is specified in two currencies. The £ is indeed sterling, I have linked accordingly - Dumelow (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is "The New York Times", not the "New York Times".
 * Thanks, fixed - Dumelow (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Could you please specify the franc/pound incident. Otherwise a well-written and engaging text, and I will be more than happy to pass it once the one issue has been resolved. Arsenikk (talk)  20:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations with a good article! Arsenikk (talk)  10:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Could you please specify the franc/pound incident. Otherwise a well-written and engaging text, and I will be more than happy to pass it once the one issue has been resolved. Arsenikk (talk)  20:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations with a good article! Arsenikk (talk)  10:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations with a good article! Arsenikk (talk)  10:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)