Talk:Trap Back/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

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

Reviewer: Morgan695 (talk · contribs) 20:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

---

I made a few edits of some overly superlative language, but this is otherwise a well-written and well-researched article that I'm happy to pass.

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. ::
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
5. :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}}
6. :: A few pings on Earwigs, they were from quotations and long lists of criminal charges.
7. It is broad in its coverage.
8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
9. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
10. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
11. ::
12. It is stable.
13. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
14. ::
15. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
16. :a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
17. ::
18. Overall:
19. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
20. :: In general, a quality article that just needed minor tweaks. Morgan695 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

:::::Thank you Morgan695! All your changes in wording were clear improvements. Grateful for your keen attention to detail and feedback. —BLZ · talk 21:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)