Talk:John W. Campbell/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • N/A

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • N/A

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I am happy to pass this article as a GA. It is well written, referenced and tagged. No OR, stable, broad and focussed. There was one citation needed tag, but I found suitable references. The category still lists un-sourced, not sure why.