Talk:John Parkinson (botanist)/Archive: GA review

GA review

I've taken on this review, due to other commitments, may not be very speedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. :-) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made one minor revision, checked images and refs, so here goes

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Jimfbleak (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks for the Christmas present. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)