Talk:Blas Ople/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I have reviewed this article for GA, and fixed a few little copy editing issues. I feel it fulfills the criteria of a GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): The writing is clear and concise
b (MoS): Follows MoS
- a (prose): The writing is clear and concise
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): The article is well referenced
b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable
c (OR): No OR
- a (references): The article is well referenced
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): Covers the major aspects of the subjects career and impact
b (focused): Remains focused on the article topic
- a (major aspects): Covers the major aspects of the subjects career and impact
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I congratulate the editors. A very nice, concise article.