Talk:Certificate of division/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Good writing

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: The only item I would address (and which is not in the GA criteria) is a redlinked "For further information" in the In Civil Cases section - it seems to me that this needs to be removed until the redlinked article is actually written. I am a fan of redlinks in lists and other areas, but it seems to me that if we are putting a link for readers to get further info, then the article should already be present. As is normally the case, you have done a very good job with this article.

   Pass or Fail: