Talk:William G. Enloe/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 10:12, 20 May 2018 (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, spelling, and grammar): Well written, grammatical, flows well. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Complies with the 5 MoS criterea.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): Densly referenced to a variety of good sources. c (OR): No evidence of OR. d (copyvio and plagiarism): All Earwig issues seem to be appropriately attributed quotes.
 * 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: There is no evidence of bias and the article is presented with a NPOV.
 * 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): Two images, which is good for an article of this length. One is free use, the other has a persuasive argument as to why it is fair use. b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: A fine, densely referenced, well written short article. Easily meets the Good Article criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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): Two images, which is good for an article of this length. One is free use, the other has a persuasive argument as to why it is fair use. b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: A fine, densely referenced, well written short article. Easily meets the Good Article criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: A fine, densely referenced, well written short article. Easily meets the Good Article criteria. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * References: Grant, Hunter-Gault and Sharpe require publisher locations. Sharpe requires an ISBN.
 * Done. Sharpe already had an ISBN.
 * Coverage: Is there not more (any) information on his parents, his siblings, what his wife/children did/do?
 * Nothing of much use, it seems. His daughter was a kindergarten teacher and had some children of her own. I've added some other additional info I found on Enloe though.
 * Pedantry: "Enloe, wanting to "avoid another Birmingham,"". The final comma should be after the quote marks.
 * Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, if the sources aren't there, you can't say anything. Apologies about the ISBN. A great little article. Easily the least work I have had to do on a GA assessment. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)