Talk:Mise of Lewes/GA1

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


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
After a couple of scan-read-throughs, this looks like a good article. It appears to be comprehensive and well reference. I will check it in more details against WP:WIAGA to determine whether it is a Good Article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. I think that it has the makings of a WP:FAC; but, as I mentioned above, a couple of the statements are a bit obtuse and the article would benefit from a WP:PR. Having said that, it is still a contender for FA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)