Talk:William Sudell

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • Adequately sourced

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • WP:NPOV

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • no cleanup banners

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • no edit warring

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • n/a

No problems with quickfail crieria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The article is reasonably well written, I made a few a copy-edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • The article conforms with the WP:MOS Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • References support the facts as far as it is possible to ascertain. I assume WP:AGF for print sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All sources conform with WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • I find no evidence of WP:OR Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is broad in its scope ....

   b (focused):

   • .... and remains focussed throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Complies with WP:NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • No evidence of edit wars. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • One public domain image is used, correctly tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • A suitable caption is used for the image Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I am happy to pas this as a Good article. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Sudell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002215806/http://www.pnefc.net/page/History/0%2C%2C10362~1033954%2C00.html to http://www.pnefc.net/page/History/0,,10362~1033954,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)