Talk:Manchester/GA1

GA Review in Progress

Hello,

I'm now reviewing this article for possible promotion to Good Article status. This is a lengthy article so it will take a little bit of time for me to compile the full critique of the article, compare it against the checklist, make suggestions, and make an decision as to whether this article should be promoted. I'll also be looking over your Peer Review. Cheers! Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Completed

Hello,

I've now completed my good article review of Manchester. Please find below my assessment of this article, and details of the criteria I assessed it against. A checklist has been provided for quick reference, and comments have been provided for a more in depth analysis.

I've also provided additional suggestions to further improve this article.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

• There are few articles I've seen on Wikipedia which such a dedicated set of editors, who work continuously to calmly and openly discuss issues and rectify them in relation to the content in Manchester.
• When I came up to the Stable criteria, I took into account everything listed on the talk page and the articles edit histories. I've made the judgement that the editors always come to a reasonable decision on changes and there is no real evidence of any edit warring, which is somewhat rare considering the semi-controversial nature of some of the content of this article, as well as an article on a subject such as a major city. You should be proud.
• The use of images in this article is fantastic. All the images contain ALT Text, are captioned when possible, and follow the Images Guidelines to the letter. Thank you to those who assisted in making this possible.
• Following your peer review, and clearly some heavy consulting of the Manual of Style, the article layout, lead, and overall readability is excellent. It appears weasel words were avoided and cleaned up following your peer review. The editors of this article don't seem to be opposed to taking onboard advice - a mark of a great contributor!
• The editors on this article have worked incredibly hard to make sure this article was written from a Neutral Point of View. This is evident from the content of the article and the discussion on the talk page.
• You have also worked hard to ensure a massive range of reliable and external references were provided to verify the content of this article. 89 references of that quality for an article like this is excellent.
• I can find no evidence of any original research within this article.
• I found a minor spelling error in the article. Just one, in the entire article. This was corrected by myself.
• The article covers just about every conceivable topic about Manchester without containing any useless or unnecessary details.

As a result of my assessment of this article, I am promoting this article to Good Article status.

A massive congratulations to the editors of this article. The only other thing I feel I could suggest from here is that you check out thefeatured article criteria and work towards promotion to Featured Article status. Good luck, and I sincerely hope everyone involved in editing this article can also apply there excellent collaborative efforts on other articles on Wikipedia.

If I can assist in any other way, provide further information, answer any questions for you, drop me a line at my talk page. If you disagree with my review of this article, please feel free to take it to a good article review. Once again, congratulations. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Pursey! I was just thinking (coming back from a small break) that this article has massively improved in the last few weeks. Well done everyone who has contributed! - FA next! Jza84 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Indeed, I looked over a large chunks of previous versions, and it's just had so much attention and hard work put into it, I'm stunned. I have no doubt if everyone continues to work on this as they have, it'll eventually make FA Status. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)