Talk:Paul S. Walsh/GA1

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 12:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I cleaned up the references. Some small fixes need to be made before I resume:
 * External links: "Independent article September 2005" is dead
 * I removed it as I was unable to find an archive.-- GoP T C N 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How reliable is ref 24?-- GoP T C N 11:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the references as the prior reference contains that information.-- GoP T C N 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The title in ref 4 is missing. As I don't have access to The Times you have to edit it.-- GoP T C N 11:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, fixed.-- GoP T C N 09:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Not sure if the mention of his favourite beer is not trivial, but I skip it
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: