Talk:John Edward Brownlee

	John Edward Brownlee has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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.
	John Edward Brownlee is the main article in the John Edward Brownlee series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 7, 2009 Good article nominee Listed November 12, 2009 Good topic candidate Not promoted October 9, 2013 Featured topic candidate Promoted February 20, 2023 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

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

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Canada: Alberta / Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta. This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Edward Brownlee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Notes

• All 15 images public domain
• In 'UGG director', they were functionally identical to it - please clarify who 'they' and 'it' are referring to.

• Done. Steve Smith (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In Electoral record, % to the second decimal place is probably not a needed level of accuracy (14.85% could be 14.9%).

• The article is very good. The prose is clear and the references are all fine. It is certainly broad, and is focused on the subject the entire way through. -maclean (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]