Talk:Holby City/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Well written. complies with relevant elements of the Manual of Style
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References check out, no OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Broad and focussed
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
tagged, licensed and captioned
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I found no issues with this article. It is a little long, but that is not a GA criterion. If you decide to take this to WP:FAC the length may become an issue. Passing as a good article. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review! I'll definitely keep the length issue in mind before a potential FAC nom. I think this is the article that I've been working on the longest in all my time on Wikipedia - since about 2007 now - and it has grown considerably in that time. I'll try and pinpoint some areas that could be condensed while retaining overall broadness of coverage. Thanks again! Frickative 20:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]