Talk:Rex Shelley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Professional work. "Pass" with congratulations. I suggest taking it to FA. Best! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

This GA review was conducted by an account subsequently discovered to be operated by a user that made use of multiple accounts. Importantly, there is nothing that supports a concern passing their own GAs or passing 'sub-GA' articles authored by others occurred. In the interest of transparency and rigor, discussion agreed reviews against the underlying articles be checked.

A nice article, which meets the GA criteria. The 'References' and 'External links' sections, incidentally, include items already in the citations ('Notes') section. The layout guidelines normally have them in just the citations section. It's conceivable contributors included them there to draw reader's attention to a resource they found especially informative. This is a small point, and I don't see it should affect things as a whole.

Overview: I agree with the review's pass of the article and with its comments. The review and GA status should stand. –Whitehorse1 00:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)