Talk:Adi Da/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Y This is not just a good article, it is a very good article. I did read the prior two GA reviews, and with those in mind, I examined the use of sources more carefully than I normally would. Primary sources seem to be carefully used only for statements and beliefs, while secondary sources are used for analysis. I see no Original Research. No other problems are evident. After a few minor fixes, this is an easy pass. Aaron north (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

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:

Thanks Aaron for your balanced review, and to all who have worked to get this page into shape over the last couple years. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks much for your review Aaron, and it is good to see the article reach GA after this long haul.. Cheers too Jason Riverdale (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)