Talk:Kohlberg Kravis Roberts/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Excellent work, looks like GA is just a quick pit stop for this article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Some of the web citations could use retrieval dates to prevent link rot, so I've tagged them for improvement. Otherwise they're fine.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Does a very good job of sticking to the facts.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   A few minor recent reversions, but it doesn't appear to be a major conflict.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   A few non-free images where no free options are available, plus a very good free image of their headquarters.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Again, excellent job. Good luck with the FA nomination. --Explodicle (T/C) 03:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)