Talk:West Worldham/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs) 16:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


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


 * 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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Another great job, Dr. Blofeld! --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews, I'm used to a lot more criticism though! They're not as good as nearby Bentworth but they're smaller villages and are pretty comprehensive on what exists on the web. West Worldham is a hamlet really.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)