GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AGK [] 12:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

Engaging and tightly-written, and covers all the bases of the subject matter. A definite plus is how well the article deals with the subject in a neutral way: it'd be easy to sensationalise the topic.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Everything referenced fine. Reliable sources for these topics are limited mainly to news stories (it takes a good decade for most crimes to make it into academic literature and at least five for journals, monthlies, etc.) so that's not a worry here.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Covers everything well.
  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):  
    No licensing problems. Image usage is sparing but adequate.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Happy to grant this article GA status. AGK [] 12:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply