GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Sharp Smith/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 03:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rublamb, I'm picking this one up too. I'll ping you once I've finished. grungaloo (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Rublamb, sorry it took me a minute to get to this. This article looks great, and I only have a few minor comments. Let me know when you're finished! grungaloo (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grungaloo: I have made the updates you suggestions. Thanks so much for the tip on the inflation template. The editor that taught me about it (in anouther GA review) did not indicate the need for a closing date. I guess people assume it is self-updating. Thanks again for working on this and the other. You deserve more than one barnstar for this GA backlog blitz! Rublamb (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate you saying that! The end_year isn't technically required, so the other GA reviewer didn't steer you wrong. Without it it will calculate to the last year it has data for (2023 I think), but personally I prefer having an end year so it's clear about when those numbers are from. Anyway, excellent work and congrats on another GA! grungaloo (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Refs 9,15,16,22,33,39,78 all good

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):
    Section layout is good. Prose is well written.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Ref section exists, sources are reliable. Earwig flags a violation, but it's just picking up quotes which are appropriately quoted in the article. Use of sources is good and spot check is good.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Good coverage, nothing missing from what I can see. Good level of detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Meets NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit warring
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images are good, appropriately licensed, captions are good too.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.