Talk:Sagara Sanosuke/GA3
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing this article again. I have read it through and the prose is immensely improved since my first review. The article is very good now. All the problems seem to have been remedied.
GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): The prose is reasonably good and the writing is clear.
b (MoS): There are no Obvious MoS errors
- a (prose): The prose is reasonably good and the writing is clear.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): Article is well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): The sources are reliable
- a (references): Article is well referenced
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): It sets the context for the article subject b (focused): Well focused on the subject.
- a (major aspects): It sets the context for the article subject
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: Neutral in viewpoint.
- Fair representation without bias: Neutral in viewpoint.
- 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:
In my view this article is immensely improved and now passes GA criteria. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)