 | Dazzled and Deceived has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 6, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Dazzled and Deceived/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaldous1 (talk · contribs) 17:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- The article is well written and complies with the manual of style guidelines. I made a few small copy-edits. --Jaldous1 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- The article is verifiable with no original research, uses reliable sources, and does not contain copyright or plagiarism issues. --Jaldous1 (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- The article is broad in coverage, but also stays focused without going into too much detail.
- The article is netural.
- The article is is stable.
- The article is illustrated and contains some nice images.
I say this article is a Good Article. --Jaldous1 (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
GA Notice
edit| GA Notice |
|---|
| Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Dazzled and Deceived in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to [[User_talk:|jaldous1]] with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Jaldous1 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
·  ·  · 
|