Talk:William Blackstone/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ajbpearce (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In (probable) anticipation of you finally succeeding at RFA, I thought I would check for inevitable Ironholds GAN's and go through one as a congratulations.
 * This GAR does not appear to have progressed since 4 January 2011. Is work still ongoing?  I would be happy to take over the review if the original reviewer has encountered difficulties.  Leave me a message at my talk page if you would like me to step in. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

New Reviewer - DustFormsWords
Reviewer: - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been invited by Wizardman to take over this review given the apparent unavailability of the initial reviewer. My initial impression is that the article should be able to be quickly passed with minor improvements, but I will conduct a full GAR tomorrow to make sure this is the case and let you know when I am ready for responses  (It's too late in my local day to start now.)  Thank you for your patience. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 :
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * The prose is clearly written, concise, and very readable. I have not detected any errors of spelling or grammar.
 * (b) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * This article complies with the manual of style for lead sections, layout, 'words to watch and list incorporation. The manual of style for fiction does not apply to this article.:

:
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * All references appear in the section "References".
 * (b) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * All facts making extraordinary claims or which are likely to be challenged are sourced to reliable sources through the use of inline citations.
 * (c) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * The article does not appear to contain any original research.

:
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * The article appears to be appropriately broad in its coverage.
 * (b) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * The article does not appear to go into unnecessary detail.

.
 * As far as I am able to tell, all relevant viewpoints on this topic are represented by the article.

.
 * The article does not appear to be the subject of rapid changes, edit wars, or ongoing disputes.

: 
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * All images appear to have valid legal rationales.
 * I'd note in passing (not necessary for GA and maybe not for FA) that File:Cavalier d'eon p. 608a.jpg is incorrectly labelled as the "own work" of the uploader. However the rest of that file's rationale makes its legal status and source clear.
 * (b) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * Images are relevant to the topic and are appropriately captioned.



Overview - I hate to pass an article to GA without finding at least something to improve, but I honestly can't fault this article against any of the GA. It passes all the criteria and as such I will be promoting it to Good Article. Well done to all editors involved. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)