Talk:Leif Tronstad/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   To get it up to GA standards, I have done the following:

   • One-sentence paragraphs are not really a good thing, and starting the whole article off with one does not make it any better.
   • For biographies, flagicons should only be used to establish nationality, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). The overuse of flags drowns the infobox, creating confusion in the mind of the reader.
   • Try to rearrange sentences so that the same word does not appear twice in a row, in two following sentences.

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:

   A small copyedit was all that was needed to pass the GA criteria. Congratulations! Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)