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

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the 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:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   There's no evidence of COPYVIO; I'll be looking for plagiarism while I'm going through the sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC) All good here. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Editing has been slow since December; certianly no edit warring here. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are CC-licensed. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Captions are fine. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is a well-done article and the first where I didn't have a laundry list of issues to be fixed. I only had the delay of waiting for the inter-library loan books arriving. Other than that, everything is as it ought to be. I would recommend using ((GBP)) in the future so that it allows conversion to other currencies where appropriate as well as depicting how much a pound sterling in 1927 costs now. I'd also have preferred use of ((Sfn)) with many of these citations. Neither of those suggestions matter for this review but I'd fix those ahead of a MILHIST A-class review. I did also notice that the geo-coordinates are about 100ft off but I guess that can't be helped. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]