Jump to content

Talk:Scott Neilson/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: Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few basic comments below, as I read through the article. I apologize in advance if these are dumb questions.

There's a start, I realize some of these things can likely be explained, rather than actually need a change. Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


All the issues above have been addressed, and I am listing Scott Neilson as a Good Article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  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:
    Not applicable
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Not applicable
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Congrats on the good article, and thanks for helping out and addressing the review issues quickly.