Talk:Tamar of Georgia/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]I've reviewed the article, paying specific attention to grammar and fixing some errors here and there. Overall, referencing is well done and thorough, the article is well-written (impressive vocabulary for a non-native speaker), and with some automatized fixes that I did it seems to conform to the manual of style. The article is broad enough, although a minor point might be the lack of a background section introducing us to the more important prior events in Georgia's history (some of those are mentioned in the article separately). As a whole, it covers the topic perfectly, is stable and well-illustrated. I saw nothing that can be perceived as POV either.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- 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:
Congrats! Todor→Bozhinov 14:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)