Talk:Hugh B. Cott
Hugh B. Cott has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 27, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Amazon refering to the Amazon Basin?
editI Changed the link to Amazon (a disambiguation page) to Amazon Basin. If that was wrong pleas change the link to the proper article. Pro bug catcher 00:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh B. Cott/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 23:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
1: 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:
Check for WP:LEAD:
|
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT: Done
|
Done
Check for WP:WTW: Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT: Done
|
Done
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)
Done
Check for WP:RS: Done Rough check with other FAs: Starfish, Sea, Crocodilia
|
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
|
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (NFC with a valid FUR)
Images:
|
---|
Done
6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA. The prose quality in particular is fantastic. Thanks, CC, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles.
Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hugh B. Cott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106033004/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/campuslife/services/grad/Memorial/memorial/fisonlectures.pdf to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/campuslife/services/grad/Memorial/memorial/fisonlectures.pdf
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://archiveshub.ac.uk/data/gb433cott
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)