Talk:Zoom! (poetry book)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes (talk · contribs) 14:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Hope to have something for you soon. BoJó &#124;  talk  UTC 14:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I'll aim to get to any comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

GA criteria

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

I do apologise,. I read the article two weekends ago and intended to pass it but I was called away for something urgent and I completely forgot to complete this page. The article is very interesting and well written, completely within scope, good referencing and with no problems I can see. It is an immediate GA pass (that is, it should have been immediate!). Very well done. All the best. BcJvs &#124;  talk  UTC 06:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I should have included the criteria template earlier so more apologies. The article easily meets all the criteria in my opinion. As I said above, it is well written, it fully complies with the MOS and it presents a good breadth of coverage within scope. Verification is satisfactory and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the content. Well done. BcJvs  &#124;  talk  UTC 13:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)