Talk:Ars Technica/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Link rot: none found

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

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:

   Well, short and sweet. I can't find anything to pick holes in [even though I tried, really hard! :-)]. This article is well written, well referenced to reliable sources, stable, broad, thorough and focussed, illustration is correctly tagged. An interesting article about one of the first important web magazines. I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)