Talk:Trap Back/GA1

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

Reviewer: Morgan695 (talk · contribs) 20:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


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

I made a few edits of some overly superlative language, but this is otherwise a well-written and well-researched article that I'm happy to pass.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * A few pings on Earwigs, they were from quotations and long lists of criminal charges.
 * 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:
 * In general, a quality article that just needed minor tweaks. Morgan695 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Morgan695! All your changes in wording were clear improvements. Grateful for your keen attention to detail and feedback. —BLZ · talk 21:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * In general, a quality article that just needed minor tweaks. Morgan695 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Morgan695! All your changes in wording were clear improvements. Grateful for your keen attention to detail and feedback. —BLZ · talk 21:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)