# Talk:Zodiac settle

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zodiac settle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 18:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-written: After a few minor grammatical tweaks, I feel the article complies with MoS policies on grammar, structure, and layout. If I had to guess... (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
Verifiable with no original research: The article contains a small bibliography, but one comprising reliable, third-party sources, and it makes good use of them. There is no evidence of original research embedded in the text. If I had to guess... (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
(c) it contains no original research
Broad in its coverage: The article seems to cover all relevant aspects of its topic for which verifiable information of an encyclopedic nature was available. If I had to guess... (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article shows no signs of bias towards or against its subject. If I had to guess... (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. None of the edits the article has received since its creation appear to be disruptive. "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: The article is not presently illustrated, but I, as the reviewer, won't grudge it on simply that reasoning. :) "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

 After checking through the article, and making minor improvements, I feel it satisfies the GA criteria. Congratulations! If I had to guess... (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)