Talk:Charles Strong

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.

---

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

Nominator: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 00:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Warriorglance (talk · contribs) 14:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a well written article to review, You can expect my comments over the next few days, Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, look forward to the review! MCE89 (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

One of the best articles I've read in this. Good job with the writing! Spot checking some sources next,

Spot Check

• Source 1Y
• Citation 1 and 2 refer to the same source right?
  • Oops... yep, fixed. MCE89 (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• Source 2 Y
• Source 3Y

Did not find any problems so far, Im assuming good faith and promoting the article. Congratulations!

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.