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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple, or so, of wikilinks since they help clarify technical terms. It was not worth adding them to a "problem list".

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A short but well referenced article on a historical figure.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Not applicable: - no figures.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Not applicable: - no figures.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on gaining another GA for an Archbishop/Saint. Pyrotec (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]