Talk:Texas annexation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 19:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Beginning to review this article for GAN... Okay! After extensive copyediting, here are my thoughts, keeping in mind that I'm not an experienced Good Article reviewer.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I extensively edited the article for typos, spelling, and grammar, and I think it's now up to snuff. I've also worked on layout and organization to try to improve MoS compliance.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I don't have access to the texts cited, so someone else who could confirm that they support the substance of the text would be very helpful.
 * 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):
 * All images claim to be public domain through age except one map, which was released by the author under a CC license.
 * 1) Overall: The article seems to me to meet all the criteria.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * All images claim to be public domain through age except one map, which was released by the author under a CC license.
 * 1) Overall: The article seems to me to meet all the criteria.
 * Pass/Fail: