Talk:Murphy Pakiam/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Overrall 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. Congratulations on producing a fine article. 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time in reviewing this, and for your assessment. I have looked at the disambiguation issues and have resolved one. The last remaining one, parish priest, should not really be a disambiguation page. I will change it and start a new article on the topic in the next week as it deserves a page in its own right (with a link to the novel). Thanks so much again. - S Masters (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)