Talk:Quarrington, Lincolnshire/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 03:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ  -US 03:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ  -US 04:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Peer review tool
 * Nothing that actually applies to the article. ✅


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * I believe http://english.my-definitions.com/en/define/Sleaford actually copied wikipedia, it even still has the header indicators even though they don't make a difference on that site.
 * No legitimate issues found ✅


 * Disambiguation links
 * No issues ✅


 * External links
 * The following links are dead
 * 27 – I assume this means reference 27? If so, then that link is working. I have added an archived link.
 * 59 – Archive link provided.
 * 78 – Archive link provided.
 * 80 – Archive link provided.
 * 65 – Archive link provided.
 * 89 – Archive link provided.
 * 99 – Archive link provided.


 * Connection issues
 * Link to metoffice.gov.uk – working fine for me
 * Parliament.uk – working fine for me


 * All resolved  MPJ  -US 14:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well Written

 * Lead
 * "Anglo-Saxon period, while mills" does not need the comma
 * Done
 * "In the 19th century the" comma after century
 * Done


 * Early
 * "material has been" I believe "have" is appropriate here
 * Done
 * "pottery sherds", I assume that is supposed to be "shards"??
 * No, sherds. Linked.
 * "ten mills in" should be 10 since you use 11 and 12 in the same sentence
 * Done
 * "the 11 or 12" 11th? 12th?
 * Sorry, but I can't see a problem with this sentence.


 * Early and later modern
 * "with exception of" should be "with the exception of"
 * Done
 * "By 1872 the" should be "By 1872, the"
 * Done
 * "In 1879 Lord Bristol" should be "In 1879, Lord Bristol"
 * Done
 * "sold much farmland" should that be "sold much of their farmland"
 * Done


 * Topography
 * "and the to north" should be "and to the north"
 * Done


 * Economy
 * "the population, while" does not need the comma
 * Done


 * Demographics
 * "it were divided" should be "was", singular as it refers back to "the population"
 * No, it refers to the population statistics: "the population statistics for the new Sleaford parish[,] which absorbed it[,] were divided into four wards".
 * "Instead a church" should be "Instead, a church"
 * Done


 * Learned a new word today. Looking good now. ✅  MPJ  -US 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources/verifiable

 * Generally looks reliable and well formed ✅

Broad in coverage

 * Looks like it's generally hitting the various sections normally in this type of articles. ✅

Neutral

 * It is very factual. straight forward, not prone to embellishment etc.

Stable

 * I don't see any evidence of edit wars in the history, granted it has an extensive history but nothing jumped out at me. ✅

Illustrated / Images

 * Images need Alt text
 * Licenses check out ✅

- I have completed my review, really not a lot of issues found. I would say that the article is 99% right now. So I will put it on hold for 7 days to allow you to work on it.  MPJ  -US 20:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking the time to review this article. I have addressed most of your comments through these edits, but I have queried two or three of your points (see above). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC).

Yep,looks good to me. Passing for GA, congratulations.  MPJ  -US 14:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)