GA Review [ edit ]
Article ( edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: 7arazred ( talk · contribs) 21:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria [ edit ]
(see GA review here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
(prose): b (: MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists)
The lead adequately summarises the article, see
WP:LEAD The prose good, it is "reasonably well written".
It's well organised, information is presented logically. Please read
WP:MoS and subpages. It is
accurate and .
(references): b (citations to : reliable sources) c (: OR) a
(major aspects): b (focused):
Fair representation without bias: It is
No edit wars, etc.:
b (appropriate use with : suitable captions)
Shoddily put together, please read the
good article criteria and make sure that this article meetrs them before renominating. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This artcile has not been reviewed.
7arazred simply copied and pasted Talk:Revolution Software/GA1 altering the failure points to passes. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Seconding the above just for the record. Apparently
nominated by Bsbass, though I cannot see how this is any short of socking given 7arazred created this page 10 min later. — 14:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC) ▎ HELLKNOWZ TALK