Talk:Karl Marx/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 17:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

OK, lets get cracking.

GA review (see here for criteria)

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):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Yep, this is a great article. Goes to GA right away. I'd recomend it for Featured.

I'm all happy with that. Thank you. Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 17:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on here - is see missing refs all over - dead ones and bare ones (that just the ref problems) - humm think a third party should have a look here. Thank you Rcsprinter for taking the time to do this GA review - however i think there is problams with the article that are lacking in the review.Moxy (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed two dead links. Everything else seems to work, and I see no bare urls. If I missed something, please list it here and be more specific (which link/ref is dead or bare). Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"fact" seems to be overused.SBaker43 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What facts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear, the word "fact". Removed unnecessary "in fact" wording. Left one that was quoted; didn't verify the quote.SBaker43 (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd removed a "fact" from another quotation, SBaker43, but I've restored it. [1] No harm done... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; should have checked them again.SBaker43 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this on hold or something? Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 19:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall

Right well, I'll fail this then. I thought it was good, but you've spotted some mistakes. Some days have gone by and it's still in that state. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 15:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What mistakes? Can somebody clearly say what are the problems with the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

All the above. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 16:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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.