From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 16:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply


Hi, I'll take this one. Should have this to you within a day Jag uar 16:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is " clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

On hold

Not a bad article, I like it. The only problems I could find with it are a few prose issues and the lead section is lacking content, but other than that it is pretty comprehensive and the references all check out. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days until they are all out of the way. Thanks! Jag uar 17:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Close - promoted

Thank you for addressing them, I also learned a few things along the way too. The lead summarises the article well and the rest of the article is also well written, enough to make it meet the GA criteria. Well done Jag uar 14:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 16:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply


Hi, I'll take this one. Should have this to you within a day Jag uar 16:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is " clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

On hold

Not a bad article, I like it. The only problems I could find with it are a few prose issues and the lead section is lacking content, but other than that it is pretty comprehensive and the references all check out. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days until they are all out of the way. Thanks! Jag uar 17:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Close - promoted

Thank you for addressing them, I also learned a few things along the way too. The lead summarises the article well and the rest of the article is also well written, enough to make it meet the GA criteria. Well done Jag uar 14:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook