Talk:SIS Building/GA1

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

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 06:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing this article. MWright96 (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * no dab links

Background

 * Change modernizing to modernising
 * The acronyms of the National Audit Office need to be included in brackets

Design and construction

 * Remove the duplicate link to the National Audit Office
 * £152.6m and £135.05m should both be changed to £152.6 million and £135.05 million
 * 12,000 m2 needs a convert template with the square feet measurement included

Recent history

 * Writing in The Telegraph after the attack, - Should be The Daily Telegraph for consistency