Talk:2019 United Kingdom prorogation controversy/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:2019 British prorogation controversy/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 British prorogation controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk · contribs) 17:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi PoliceSheep99 I'm happy to review. Let me just give it a read through. Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How I review is go through section by section, note my comments and various suggestions. I'll also make minor edits if I see spelling errors etc.

• 'in the end' felt a little informal, so I changed it to 'following political opposition'
• No other issues

Done very well. No issues here.

• The remainder is all written well.
• I suggest that you add in some more subheadings (under the main headings). This should allow for easier navigation.

• All good here.

• Some statements are uncited, such as "Parliament will not be evacuated from the centre stage of the decision-making process on this important matter". I suggest you have a read through and ensure that all quotations and statements are well referenced.
• Otherwise, choice of citations are great.

• A great article. If the above can be addressed, this is definitely GA material! :) SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

{{Ping|SerAntoniDeMiloni}} I've followed your comments. Is anything else required. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

:{{Ping|PoliceSheep99}} All good! Let me just go through the review now. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi PoliceSheep99. My review is attached. Enjoy the GA!

1. It is reasonably well written.
2. :a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|y}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y}}
3. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
4. :a (reference section): {{GAList/check|y}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|y}} d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|y}}
5. It is broad in its coverage.
6. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
7. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
8. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
9. ::
10. It is stable.
11. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
12. ::
13. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
14. :a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
15. ::
16. Overall:
17. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}

Hi PoliceSheep99. Just to add, there's currently a bit of a backlog with GA nominations... It would be great if you could help reduce some of these by reviewing other nominations. Wikipedia tries to get a 2 noms reviews per one you put out. If you don't have the time, that's also totally fine! Enjoy the GA though :) SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

{{Reply to|SerAntoniDeMiloni}} I'd love to get involved but I'm really not sure how. Any tips of how to get started? PoliceSheep99 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

{{Reply to|PoliceSheep99}}. Sure. The general criteria are under Wikipedia:Good article criteria. When reviewing, I generally have a read through, later going through each section of the article (as well as images and references) and make some suggestions for improvement based on the guideline. Once those are made, I use the review template shown above to go through the criteria. In the source text, the code "{{GAList/check|y}}" can be changed from y to n or blank to show wether the criteria has been fulfilled. All the unreviewed nominations are found at Wikipedia:Good article nominations; some instructions can also be found at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Thanks! SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)