Talk:1996 Manchester bombing/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Starting review (tomorrow). Pyrotec (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]I found three fairly minor "problems", one of which I corrected; presumably, they were kindly left for me to pick up during the review.
I also stopped and paused to think about the "largest device detonated in Great Britain during peacetime". That (in view of the citation) I presume is a summary taken directly from King 2006 and was contrasting the modern day British mainland against WW I and WW II. Looking at Parachute mine, it appears that Germany dropped devices of that size. I'm therefore merely noting this comment, but do not require any response.
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, well-illustrated, well-referenced GA.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations on the quality of the article: I assume PR and FAC will follow soon?