This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Romance High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lord of Scoundrels/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 11:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@Ruby2010: This is my 22nd GA review, but it's the first one i've been able to pass immediately instead of placing on hold while flaws and concerns are addressed. You clearly know what you're doing. Well done. I'm passing this now, though I do have two minor queries. Firstly I don't see the purpose of your inline citation in the lead, when the information is clearly referenced in the body. Secondly why does the actual book when cited only use an ISBN10, when all the others use ISBN13s? Freikorp (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for reviewing! I have added the lengthened version of the ISBN. Per WP:LEADCITE, I left the inline citation there since it is supporting a direct quote. Thanks again! Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]