Talk:Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

I'd be careful with some of the prose: in places it can become a little colloquial and I saw one or two contractions (i.e. didn't) that should be written out in full. In all though, an excellently written article.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)