Talk:Beckman–Quarles theorem

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beckman–Quarles theorem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The person who loves reading (talk · contribs) 16:03, 1 April 2023 (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, spelling, and grammar):

   The prose is very clear, and there is no spelling or grammar mistakes.

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

   No known manual of style issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   This article contains many references which I can identify the source.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   All reliable sources.

   c. (OR):

   No original research.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No close paraphrasing.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Main aspects are covered.

   b. (focused):

   No unnecessary details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Very neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

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

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

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Nice image with a suitable caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above 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.