Talk:Amazing Grace/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

After a quick scan read through, this article appears to be at or above GA-standard (although I think it is possibly under wikilinked in places). I will now do a more detailed review. It's quite a long article so this might take a day or so; and initially I will only be highlighting "problems", if any. Pyrotec (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Pyrotec. Sorry for not responding sooner. I was out of town for some drunken debauchery to initiate the new year. Please let me know what you have to suggest for the article. I appreciate your time and efforts. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed your "drunken debauchery". I've read the article once more, in depth and I've added a few wikilinks. I'm going to award it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A very well referenced and illustrated Good Article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of this article. I'm awarding it GA-status.

You may wish to consider WP:FAC, I have no personal experience of it (yet), other than several articles that I have reviewed at WP:GAN have quite soon afterwards become FAs, but I suspect that this could be a strong candidate. Pyrotec (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and the review. I wrote it with FAC in mind, but it always helps to have multiple perspectives on what can be improved, or how I can make my writing clearer. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)