Talk:Stephen Hopkins (politician)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sabrebd (talk · contribs) 22:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. It looks to be very high quality. No immediate problems are apparent. Seems to have reliable sources, seems to be written in a NPOV, no clean up banners, edit wars or obvious copyright violations. I will post more detailed comments soon.--  SabreBD  (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks very much for picking this up.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Lead: "a signer" - shouldn't that be a "signatory", or is this an "Americanism" I have not encountered before?
 * Yes, "signer" is an acceptable Americanism; I'm careful to use "signatory" when writing about English/British subjects. A place to see this American usage is Signing of the United States Declaration of Independence.
 * I noted that link, but wasn't quite sure to make of it in an unassessed article, but if you say it is American English that is fine by me.
 * This is fine. I can see where a few commas should probably be moved and a couple of sentences are a bit cumbersome, so I would think about going for a copyedit before moving to FA, but this is all very minor and well within the criteria.
 * Quotations need to be checked for WP:Logical quotation with punctuation not part of the quote (or if it is unclear) outside of the quotes.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Lead and layout look fine. I cannot see any words to watch in here.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * There is one deadlink (American Stories: Paintings of Everyday Life, 1765–1915).
 * Dead link has been replaced with active link, and text altered accordingly.Sarnold17 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything else looks fine.
 * C. No original research:
 * Cannot see any instances of this.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Most are from the commons. File:Samuel Ward.cropped.jpg, File:RightsColoniesExamined.cropped.jpg and File:Hopkins.Stephen.grave stone.No Bur Gnd.20110722.jpgneed to be moved to the commons. Just a reminder that these will need alternative captions before going to FA.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Most are from the commons. File:Samuel Ward.cropped.jpg, File:RightsColoniesExamined.cropped.jpg and File:Hopkins.Stephen.grave stone.No Bur Gnd.20110722.jpgneed to be moved to the commons. Just a reminder that these will need alternative captions before going to FA.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Just a couple of minor issues to check. Putting this on hold for now.--  SabreBD  (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay. Assuming that the logical quotation issue is fine the rest is largely advisory, so I am passing this article as GA.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks for your time and effort, and hope that you can stay online for a while.  Best regards.Sarnold17 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)