Jump to content

Talk:Fra Mauro formation/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

Reviewer: Szzuk (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


I'm a physicist so within my remit.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    MOS compliance is fine, clearly well written with no grammatical errors.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Sources are good but ref 4 contains a bad link.
     Done Ref 4 has been repaired. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Scope's good, not too broad or too narrow.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Yes, it's an academic treatment of the subject.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, hard to argue over:
    History is stable and uncontroversial.
  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:
    All the images are public domain.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass. Article is good, reference 4 contains a bad link. It would be unfair to fail it just for that but it needs fixing.