Jump to content

Talk:Haakon IV/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

From a quick read of this article and the references, this article appears to be at or about GA level, possibly well on its way to being a WP:FAC. Nevertheless I'm just going to review it against WP:WIAGA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Historical sources & Background and childhood -
  • These two sections are compliant.
  • Reign -

...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This section appears to be fully compliant.
  • Views on Haakon's reign & Children and marriage -
  • These two sections are compliant.
  • This should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points. It does both and is acceptable, although a bit more detail (or "meat") in the summary would help improve the the lead.

Pyrotec (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


An interesting an informative article

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    The Lead is acceptable as an introduction, but a bit more detailed summary of the main points would be beneficial. However, it's just about adequate to allow me to award GA-status as it is.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well illustrated.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I think this article could make WP:FAC although I suspect that the WP:Lead would need to be improved, i.e. a more detailed summary of the main points in the article, to get this article up to FA-standard.

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Its a good article and now A Good Article. Congratulations. Pyrotec (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]