Talk:Before and After Science/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, starting substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • I made a couple of minor copy-edits

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Ref #14 [1]was dead, but I found an archived version at the Internet Archive. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All other references appear OK

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

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:

   Pass/Fail:

   • All OK, congratulations, this is a Good Article. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)