# Talk:Jackie Stamps

Please move the article to Jack Stamps 146.90.7.173 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

East Staffordshire District Council completed a housing development in Winshill, close to Jackie's home, in 1990. The development consisted of two distinct areas and one of them was named in his memory.  2A00:23C6:249E:B901:9110:44B9:2D1:745A (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Date should be 1992, not 1990.  2A00:23C6:249E:B901:91C9:A356:B752:67DA (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in before the GA review gets started. There are several references that are missing the |via= parameter, would be good to fix these before the review starts. Keith D (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jackie Stamps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Bungle (talk · contribs) 17:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Lucfev (talk · contribs) 19:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Hello. I will be reviewing this one. Lucfev (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)


### Comments
This article is in good shape, considering the state it was in before your work on it. I have done a bit of copyediting, but the article seems to meet all of the criteria. There are no images but I don't believe it would be possible.
I have done a spotcheck on the source, and source 3, 4, 13, 21, 24, 25, 28, 31, 33, 39, 42, 45, 56 and 59 all look good. Unfortunately I do not have access to the enfa page but I would assume it corroborates the article.
@Lucfev: Many thanks for deciding to review the article. It's nice to read that you also think it's in a much better condition than prior to my work on it. I am hopeful we can find a photo at some point as it's not out of the question for one to exist. I see you didn't advice upon any other further improvement suggestions, so trust that you believe the article is broad enough already in its coverage of the subject. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)