Talk:Jacob L. Beilhart/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 10:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead is only two sentences long. Add important aspects from his early life, the foundation of the society and the last years. Two - three more sentences ought to do.--GoP_T^C_N 11:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Blog accepted because the author is an expert

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: I copyedited the article a bit and linked some uncommon words. Otherwise the article deserves the icon if you expand the section a bit.--GoP_T^C_N 11:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

I've expanded the lead section. I'm always fearful that I'm including too much once I get started. I believe that I've addressed the concerns expressed above. Thanks! Wikipelli ^Talk 18:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Better, but the last sentence of the lead is not cited, though. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 20:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I had left it off (per my comment on your talk page).... I've added the reference now. Thanks! Wikipelli ^Talk 20:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then I will pass the article! :)--GoP_T^C_N 20:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)