Talk:Bill Woodfull/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jackyd101 in topic GA Reassessment
GA Reassessment
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- Prose is pretty good, probably an 8/10.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail: