Talk:Alexander Cameron Rutherford/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- In the The move west section, the last sentence says "and also owned and interest gold mining equipment situated on the North Saskatchewan River." This doesn't make grammatical sense...
- Early political career section, third paragraph, "on a similar platform of independent support for Haultain has he had adopted in 1898"
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Ref #117 (Territories) needs an access date.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- The photo of John R. Boyle is lacking author information.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Overall a very nice article. I have a couple of comments on prose and one comment each on references and images, so I am placing this review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- All excellent points that I should have caught myself. Now fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Allright, everything looks great, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Very nice work and thanks for the prompt response. Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- All excellent points that I should have caught myself. Now fixed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Overall a very nice article. I have a couple of comments on prose and one comment each on references and images, so I am placing this review on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: