Talk:Jan Willem Spruyt/Comments

Assessment comments

Assessment comments for this article can be found on the peer review page at WikiProject Biography. Michel Doortmont (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA-status assessment & 2nd opinion request

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is a fairly short, but still comprehensive article on a interesting and noteworthy figure from South African and world history. There may be some assessment concerns, but these seem minor and not heavy enough to disallow GA-status. See the separate comments below.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is clear, spelling and grammar seem correct; 2nd opinion useful?

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Issues with regard to style guide were addressed in peer review

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No images available; issue addressed in peer review (see comments and reply in that section)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Although I am confident this article qualifies as GA, because of the points brought forward above, a second opinion would be useful.

Makeshift Thackery (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)