Talk:Edward Elgar/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

I've now read through this article, but have not checked the citations, or the text in any depth. My first impressions are that this is a possible WP:FAC. Nevertheless, this article is a WP:GAN so I will continue my review. As its a comprehensive article, this review is likely to take several days. At this stage I will mostly be highlighting "problems" (if any), so no news is probably good news. Pyrotec (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made a couple of changes of "Elgar" to "Edward Elgar" and "Edward", respectively, in the Biography, Early years, subsection's discussion of him, his parents and syblings - "Elgar" did not seem the right identification for one individual in a family named Elgar. However, I did not change all of them. Pyrotec (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I beleive that this article is a strong candidate for WP:FAC

  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:
    Well illustrated
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I found this an interesting and informative article to review. I'm pleased to be able to grant it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]