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

Reviewer: Jack4576 (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   No issues with the prose, I did add one space at the front after evaluating this reviwe

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

   Style is good, paragraphs breaking the book apart are good. Overview good, reviews of book also good

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   all verifiable and especially impressed with the page by page referencing of the book

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   all sources are accurate to the claims being made including the ones references directly to pages of the book

   c. (OR):

   where book is used as a primary sources its to make uncontroversial factual claims, no synthesis occurring on this page

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   no issues

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   discusses the book in depth without any undue weight issues. also discusses relevant information surrounding the book

   b. (focused):

   article does not go off in tangents about micronations,

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   not hagiographic, critical commentary included

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   one author no warring

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   fair use and appropriately used

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   only image is book cover

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   all criteria passed, GA

(Criteria marked are unassessed)