Talk:Constantine Angelos/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply


Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi Krishna Chaitanya Velaga and thanks for taking the time to review this article. I've tried to correct some of the points you raised, but on others I have pointed out why I disagree or could not understand what you meant. Please have a look. Also, since I assume you are unfamiliar with the subject, I'd like to ask if, apart from the narrow GA criteria, you have any comments on understandability, context, etc. Best regards, Constantine 17:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

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):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply