GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 10:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I've now completed my initial read through of the article.
At this point in time the article appears to be reasonably comprehensive in scope, well referenced and well illustrated. So, as it appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA, I will not be "quick failing" it. I'm also aware of the "other" Talk:Sibyl de Neufmarché#GA Review; but I've not made any decisions on the points raised in that discussion.
Over the next day or so I will be going through the article in more depth, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until the end; and noting here any "problems", if any, that I find. This is "problem finding", so if I don't have much to say about a particular section/subsection that means that I regard it as being generally compliant with WP:WIAGA. Any questions or comments that you may have can also be added here.
Finally, I will provide an Overall summary and a pass/fail decision - it I put the review On Hold that will be done in the Initial review not the Final review. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Done
Done
....to be continued.
Pyrotec (
talk)
13:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As there are a few minor points to be resolved, I'm putting this review On Hold. The article should gain GA once they have been resolved. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
As the minor points in my review have now been resolved, I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations in producing an informative, well-referenced and illustrated article. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 10:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I've now completed my initial read through of the article.
At this point in time the article appears to be reasonably comprehensive in scope, well referenced and well illustrated. So, as it appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA, I will not be "quick failing" it. I'm also aware of the "other" Talk:Sibyl de Neufmarché#GA Review; but I've not made any decisions on the points raised in that discussion.
Over the next day or so I will be going through the article in more depth, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until the end; and noting here any "problems", if any, that I find. This is "problem finding", so if I don't have much to say about a particular section/subsection that means that I regard it as being generally compliant with WP:WIAGA. Any questions or comments that you may have can also be added here.
Finally, I will provide an Overall summary and a pass/fail decision - it I put the review On Hold that will be done in the Initial review not the Final review. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Done
Done
....to be continued.
Pyrotec (
talk)
13:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As there are a few minor points to be resolved, I'm putting this review On Hold. The article should gain GA once they have been resolved. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
As the minor points in my review have now been resolved, I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations in producing an informative, well-referenced and illustrated article. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)