Talk:Revolution Software/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 7arazred (talk · contribs) 21:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead adequately summarises the article, see WP:LEAD

   The prose good, it is "reasonably well written".

   It's well organised, information is presented logically. Please read WP:MoS and subpages.

2. It is accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   stable

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Shoddily put together, please read the good article criteria and make sure that this article meetrs them before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This artcile has not been reviewed. 7arazred simply copied and pasted Talk:Revolution Software/GA1 altering the failure points to passes. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconding the above just for the record. Apparently nominated by Bsbass, though I cannot see how this is any short of socking given 7arazred created this page 10 min later. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)