Talk:The Converted Deacon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll another one again if you don't mind! JAG UAR   15:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 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 would recommend cutting the lead into two paragraphs to make the lead more balanced, per WP:LEAD
 * Why is "Independent" capitalised in the lead?
 * "Though the reviewer in the The New York Dramatic Mirror however disagreed that the premise was plausible" - I would cut "however" and add a semi-colon at the end before the quote
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:

A solid and well researched article with no major problems that would make this to be put on hold. JAG UAR   17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)