Talk:James Bond/GA2

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 22:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: two found, one fixed, one tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for picking up the review on this one. I've replaced the dead link and taken out the tag on that one. (Citation 142) Cheers - SchroCat (^@) 23:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Prose is reasonably well written, article complies with key MoS elements.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Article is adequately referenced, sources are RS, spotchecks show statements supported by cites, no OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Article provides a good overview of the subject
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    article is stable
  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):  
    Images have suitable licenses or non-free fair use rationales and captions
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Good to see this article considerably improved since delisting over two years ago. Happy to list! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.