- This review is transcluded from Talk:WASP-13/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: I will review this article against the good article criteria. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Nicely written article, an interesting read.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- I'm having issues with reference #1; the abstract does not appear to supply cited information.
Resolved: I've found the PDF article
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- I've no reason to suspect OR, but I can't seem to find cited info in ref #1.
Resolved: I've Found the PDF article
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- N/A; No images used in article.
- Pass or Fail:
Article, overall, looks good to me. Will wait until I hear from you on the journal reference. On hold for seven days. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've found the PDF and resolved the issue. Everything looks good; glad to list as good article. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)