Talk:.рф/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   In-line citations are missing

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Several important information is missing. For example, it does not mention the domain squatting, types of registration and policies

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: Please fix those issues before I resume. --GoP_T^C_N 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

I have to fail this nomination as per the advice on my talk page by the nominator. --GoP_T^C_N 18:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)