We Are Water Protectors has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 29, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from We Are Water Protectors appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 December 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose ( talk · contribs) 08:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Copyvio check
Images
Sources
Synopsis
Background and publication
Writing and illustrations
Reception
Infobox and lead
Thanks for your work on the article, DanCherek. I did a couple of searches to see whether the presentation of only positive reviews was appropriate, and I'm satisfied that it is. I could have made a couple of minor tweaks and passed this, but I through I'd give you an opportunity to reply to the points above - some of which, as noted, are optional. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
We Are Water Protectors has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 29, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from We Are Water Protectors appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 December 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose ( talk · contribs) 08:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Copyvio check
Images
Sources
Synopsis
Background and publication
Writing and illustrations
Reception
Infobox and lead
Thanks for your work on the article, DanCherek. I did a couple of searches to see whether the presentation of only positive reviews was appropriate, and I'm satisfied that it is. I could have made a couple of minor tweaks and passed this, but I through I'd give you an opportunity to reply to the points above - some of which, as noted, are optional. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)