From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
Mdann52 (
talk ·
contribs)
12:31, 4 July 2013 (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:
- Is it factually accurate and
verifiable?
- A. Has an
appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources
where necessary:
- C.
No original research:
- Some unsourced statements; However, they seem to have citations elsewhere backing them up.
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A.
Major aspects:
- B.
Focused:
- Has focused coverage, without getting over-detailed or undue.
- Is it
neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No
edit wars, etc:
- The only reverted content seems to be vandalism
- Does it contain
images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Only issue is the watermark on the image; However, I'm sure the people at Commons will (eventually) get rid of it
- B. Images are provided if possible and are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- No problems that I can see, I feel that this is a clear pass.