From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 14:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I think this is an exceptionally well-written small article. Good job, editors.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Prose is clear.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Layout is appropriate. No MoS issues that I can see.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    I see no original research.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Seems quite stable after the last round of heavy edits.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images are free and tagged with permission.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Images are relevant.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I've no problem passing this article.
thanks! I think this might be the first time ever I've got an article through with no tweaks required :) ...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I tried to find things to tweak. I may have missed some minor grammar or spelling - I hope not - but the fundamentals of a good article are easily met with this one. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)