Talk:Presbyterian Church in the United States of America/GA3

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

Reviewer: Bradv (talk · contribs) 15:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This is my first GA review in a few years, but this is a topic I'm a little familiar with, so here goes. I'll be going through the following checklist. Bradv 15:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Well-written article, with a clear and thorough understanding of the topic.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * There may still be some technical terms, but I'm not sure that can be avoided with this topic.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Almost every paragraph contains a reference to a reliable source.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * While there is a lot of detail in the article, it is all relevant to the topic.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No concerns with neutrality. Full coverage is given to both sides of every debate in the history of this denomination, as far as I can tell.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Excellent job with the pictures.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Well done. I've looked over the concerns with previous reviews, and they all appear to be addressed.
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Excellent job with the pictures.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Well done. I've looked over the concerns with previous reviews, and they all appear to be addressed.
 * Well done. I've looked over the concerns with previous reviews, and they all appear to be addressed.