GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 18:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this, hopefully to be done within the day. Comments to come shortly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead

Life and family

First years at the BBC

BBC administration

Life series

Beyond Life on Earth

Growing engagement

Environment

Human population

Religious views

BBC and public service broadcasting

Politics

No comments here, well done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary titles

Recognition

Species named after Attenborough

Awards

Miscellaneous comments


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:
    All issues resolved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    All issues resolved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  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:
    No issues here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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:
    From my checking, the sources are all reliable. I did not go through all 254 individually, this isn't FAC, but I'm taking it on good faith that the remainder are all appropriate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    Everything is meticulously cited. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No issues, the only things to come up on Earwig were direct quotes, which are all properly attributed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    This article has comprehensive coverage of Attenborough. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Everything is relevant to the subject of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Article is neutral. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No issues here, article is stable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2021 (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 are appropriately tagged, and used properly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    All images relevant and properly captioned. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    All criteria are met, and I will be promoting this to GA. Thanks to Lee Vilenski and Femkemilene for their hard work on this article, and congratulations! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]