From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
22:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
reply
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B.
MoS compliance for
lead,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction, and
lists:
- A couple of refs need place of publication
- Is it factually accurate and
verifiable?
- A.
References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C.
No original research:
- 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:
- Nice graphics, but the labels and colors don't match.
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Doh! I feel stupid for the colour label thing. Fixed now, and added the usual locations in sources. What exactly is the problem with 2A?
Constantine
✍
01:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Nothing, just one I missed checking off.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
reply