Talk:Ipswich serial murders/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am checking that the article meets a few basic things listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles before I do an in depth review:

Check 1

The article has sources.
The article is not clearly POV
The article has no cleanup banners .
The article doesn't seem to be the subject of any major ongoing edit wars
The article doesn't specifically concern a rapidly unfolding current event without a definite endpoint

Check Two

I will put {{done}} or {{not done}} below the places where the cirteria is met and not met respectively.

A good article is—

Well-written:
Done Anonymous101 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Lead sections
Done Anonymous101 (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layout
Done Anonymous101 (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon
Done Anonymous101 (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words to avoid
Done - some of the Words to Avoid are used, although I believe they are used appropriately. Anonymous101 (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List incorporation
Done - no lists Anonymous101 (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable with no original research
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
Not done - please provide references where the {{fact}} templates areAnonymous101 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
Not done - please provide references where the {{fact}} templates areAnonymous101 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research
Done Anonymous101 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Broad in its coverage
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
Done Anonymous101 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
Done Anonymous101 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
Done Anonymous101 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Done Anonymous101 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
Done Anonymous101 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
Done Anonymous101 (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I have completed the {{fact}} tag stuff. I either refereced, re-worded and referenced or removed completly. Please look at the article and check you are happy with it. Million_Moments (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check Three

All the above issues have been resolved. I am promoting this to GA status. Great Article! Anonymous101 (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]