Talk:R. W. Goodman/GA1

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 16:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Review

 * 1) Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
 * 2) Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * 3) Contains a short description which complies with recommendations.
 * 4) Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
 * 5) Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
 * 6) ''Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
 * 7) Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
 * 8) Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
 * 9) Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
 * 10) All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
 * 11) All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
 * 12) Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
 * 13) No original research.
 * 14) No copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 15) Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
 * 16) Neutral.
 * 17) Stable.
 * 18) Illustrated, if possible.
 * 19) Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'll be happy to do this review. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Result
This ticks all the boxes above and so it passes the review. I'll do the necessary at WP:GA. Well done and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)