From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment

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

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2007 and the GA requirements have been "tightened up", so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Overall summary

  • I've removed a few unsupported claims and fixed some dead web links.
  • Overall:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm marking this article as a "keep" and updating the Article History accordingly. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment

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

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2007 and the GA requirements have been "tightened up", so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Overall summary

  • I've removed a few unsupported claims and fixed some dead web links.
  • Overall:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm marking this article as a "keep" and updating the Article History accordingly. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook