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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b ( MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • All web links are live; referenced statemenst check out. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All sources appear reliable. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

   c ( OR):

   • I find no evidence of OR. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • OK, no problems with this, keep GA status. You may wish to consider updating as there is not much post 2006. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply