Jump to content

Talk:Alex Raymond/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Some facts needed, but overall okay.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    One of the strong points of the article. Good job editors.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Good job editors with all the great images. Makes the article all the more better.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Very good. Filled with great material. Although I do not necessarily like the Quotes section, it is okay to keep. The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Glad to hear on the quick pass. :) BOZ (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]