Talk:Samuel Frickleton

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll start this in a day or two.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

• good article! I've made some minro tweaks and you can see them here The most ambitious one was moving a sentence from the 4th paragraph of Military to the fifth. Please check that to make sure I didn't screw up citations, etc. In terms of content, it belongs with 5th paragraph, but in terms of citations....?

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Auntieruth55:, thanks for the review, much appreciated. Your changes all check out OK, no disrupted cites. However, for consistency with other articles for the NZ VC winners that I have worked on, I have reverted your change to the first paragraph of the lead. Instead, I have added a further sentence to the first paragraph which I believe goes some way to achieving the intention behind your own edit to the lead. Happy to revise and/or discuss further if needed. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely! much improved. Passed. auntieruth (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)