From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 comment! 21:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I will review soon. Ruby2010 comment! 21:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): 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):
  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:

Comments

On hold for seven days while the minor issues above get addressed. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 20:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC) reply

User:Queenieacoustic hasn't been active for a few days so I don't think he minds me taking care of these minor issues. Thanks for the review! Theleftorium (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Looks good. Pass for GA. Nice work you two! Ruby2010 comment! 02:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply