From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Starting GAreview.Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, wide-ranging, well-illustrated, article.

  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:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    There are a number of "red-links" in the article, perhaps a few too many; however they do not detract from the overall standard of the article, which is compliant with GA-class.Pyrotec (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review! MTLskyline (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)