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

Starting GAreview. Pyrotec ( talk) 10:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

On Hold

I'm putting the GA review review On Hold for two reasons.

1. The article it is not stable, it is being substantially altered.
2. There are Copyright considerations, some of the paragraphs are straight copy and pastes from web sites used as references; and this is not being acknowledged.

Pyrotec ( talk) 20:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The article has been stable now for a week or so and the "copyright problems" appear to have gone away (mostly overenthusiastic use of text from web site(s)), so I'll restart the GA review. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A well illustrated up to date article.

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:

   Mostly a mixture of BBC, newspapers, plus the Centre's own website.

   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:

Congratulations, I'm awarding this article GA-status. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply