Talk:Wilberforce (cat)/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 22:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• This article meets the GA standard. Congrats to Tim O'Doherty and everyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking up the review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	After some minor tweaks, the prose is good - pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, well-sourced.
	2b. 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).	A few tabloid sources, but nothing known to be generally unreliable, and generally good newspaper sourcing. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None detected, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Can't find anything else of note. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No overdetail - the subject is inherently a little trivial, but definitely notable and adequately covered. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Quite recent editing, but I assume that further edits are not planned. Provisional pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One fair use image, looks reasonable. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues here, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.