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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 14:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be conducting this GA review. Please be patient! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

ok, cool -take your time ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is easily a good article. I made about a half-dozen minor edits to spelling, grammar, linking, etc. I don't see anything else that sticks out which needs work to meet the GA criteria. Good job, and congratulations! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, 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):
  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):


Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg