From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh ( talk · contribs) 05:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Nominator: GhostRiver ( talk · contribs) at 18:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Will take a look soon! – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 05:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

GA criteria

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c ( OR):
    d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments

Prose

That is it! A very-well written article.

Images

Sources

That is it. I am struggling to nitpick. Excellent work! Putting on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 18:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Kavyansh.Singh Everything should be addressed now, thank you for such a prompt review! — Ghost River 16:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Nice work! Promoting! – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 19:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.