Talk:Neil Alexander/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 20:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguations: No links found.
Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.
Checking against the GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No original research found. AGF for offline sources
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Flawless, I couldn't find any problems with it at all. JAGUAR 15:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)