Talk:Aeroplane Jelly/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It doesn't really go into anything between 1966 and 1995. Not a showstopper, but a good place for expansion.

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):

   A picture of the product itself, in some form, would be a welcome addition, but the absence of such a picture is not a reason to hold this article back.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   One of the best-prepared GA articles I've had the pleasure to review. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)