Talk:Lester Brain/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written

 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * Well written


 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 * no WP:MOS concerns

Factually written 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
 * Well referenced


 * (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
 * Inline citations are appropriate, however certain sections contain paragraphs cited entirely by one source. While this is OK, you might consider duplicating the reference instead of just leaving it at the end if that paragraph cites specific details, such as birth dates and monitary figures as occurs in the "early life" section. Still, this is just advice for improvement, not a GA concern.


 * (c) it contains no original research
 * No indication of original research

Broad in its coverage

 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * A well-covered subject, to the point of being a potential FA candidate. Well done.


 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * The article goes into detail, but not inappropriately. The article can easily be followed by the reader.

Neutral

 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Article is very neutral and unbiased

Stable

 * it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Article is stable

Illustrated, if possible

 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * All images tagged as PD


 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * Images are relevant and useful, with captions

General comments
This is a well-written article, and a clear featured article contender. The article is in-depth and well referenced and the prose is very clear. Very well done.

Overall
Easily passes GA -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 22:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking the time to review/comment, Shirik -- Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)