Talk:London Ringways/GA1

Latest comment: 3 years ago by JackFromReedsburg in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 03:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 03:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  

Discussion

edit

@DavidCane: Just a quick note to say the GA is underway, as you've done lots of work on the article, I'd imagine you want to add your input into this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to comment/respond.--DavidCane (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply


  • Copyvio check shows a mirror. Nothing wrong here.
All major claims are cited. The article is well written and is consistent with its grammar
I would like to see the maps for Ringways 2 - 4 the same size as Ringway 1.
I suggest adding {{British English}} to the talk page just as a courtesy notice.
Overall, this article meets all GA criteria, so I will be promoting it. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply