Talk:The Million Dollar Homepage/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
    File:The Million Dollar Homepage.png needs a fair-use rationale. It already has a copyright tag, but a specific fair-use rationale for its use in this article is needed. Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline has guidelines on how these should be structured and what they need to contain
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I'm putting this review on hold for seven days to allow a fair-use rationale to be added. Also, at least one external link in the article deadlinks and should be fixed (see [1]). I'll be watching this page, so when you're done with those you can either leave me a note here or on my talk page and I'll take a look. Otherwise, everything looks great! -Drilnoth (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


  • Thanks for reviewing. I have updated the image to how it is today, and added a fair use rationale. As for the deadlink, the deadlink checker says that [2] is dead, but when I click on it I have no problem seeing it. Before I take this to WP:FAC, do you have any other suggestions for the page? Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay; I wouldn't worry about the link then. Anyway, thanks for updating the image rationale; I'll be passing this.
      As to an FAC, I would highly recommend one; I was really impressed by the article, and would support it in an FAR. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)