Talk:John T. Hayward/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Clear.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Looks fine at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

None spotted.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

All good.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

All good.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]