Talk:Hammersmith

GA review

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review

Not much by way of comment from me. I think you might be consistent about whether women who act on stage/screen are actors or actresses. The statement in the lead that many actors were born in the borough in the 20th century is not substantiated in the main text. I don't press the point but Holst also wrote a Brook Green Suite. Trivial points all, and nothing that disqualifies the article for GA. Therefore:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

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:

   Well illustrated.

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

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Many thanks! I'll make some tweaks to the text now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)