GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

COGDEN review

Reviewer: COGDEN 21:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria:

  1. "Well-written"
    • The prose is clear, readable, and grammatical.
    • The lede is standard and well written, and the article layoyut is standard.
  2. "Factually accurate and verifiable"
    • Provides references to all sources.
    • Provides in-line citations in all appropriate locations.
    • Does not appear to contain original research.
  3. "Broad in its coverage"
    • Addresses all the main aspects of the topic that I can think of.
    • Stays focused on the subject matter without unnecessary detail.
  4. "Neutral"
    • Is written in a dispassionate tone, with know perceived bias.
  5. "Stable"
    • Is not the subject of an edit war or ongoing content dispute.
  6. "Illustrated, if possible, by images"
    • Images are tagged with their copyright status, and are free content. The Guy Fawkes image is not a copyright issue, because it is a mechanical reproduction of an old image.
    • Images are relevant and appropriately captioned.


General note: This article is very well done, and I think it easily deserves "good" status. I have a couple of optional suggestions, however, on the way toward "featured" status. Take them or leave them, for what they are worth:

COGDEN 21:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the pointers. I did look at the French system but haven't found any source that finds a relationship between England and France in this respect, and therefore thought that do include it would be WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm waiting for another source to arrive at my local library, I'll see what that contains. Parrot of Doom 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]