Talk:William the Carpenter/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There a high degree of reliance on primary sources, but I can understand how that is dictated by the obscure nature of the subject.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It is short, but again, it's an obscure subject and I think you've gotten a lot out of it.
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)