Talk:The Book of est/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: two found and fixed.[1] --Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I made one copy-edit.[2]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References, check out, but I am not happy with the bare LOCN & OCLC numbers (refs #14/15/16/17) Can these be expanded, eg Library of Congress Catalog Record. Just so that the reader can figure out what they are. Done

   Other references check out.

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:

ON hold for seven days, just one minor matter to be addressed. --Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for sorting that minor issue out. I am now happy to pass this as a good article, congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to GA Review

Thanks very much for doing the GA Review. The above recommended helpful suggestions are now all  Done. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)