Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells/GA2

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Second review by Epicadam (talk · contribs)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Good

   C. No original research:

   I assume that some of the information in the sports and public service sections came from somewhere, but since the information isn't likely to challenged, I'm not too worried about it for GA.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Matches UKCITY

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great job here. I'm glad you took the chance to get a peer review from Finetooth and I'm happy to promote to GA. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)