Talk:Tatwine/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Pyrotec in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've added a couple, or so, of wikilinks since they help clarify technical terms. It was not worth adding them to a "problem list".

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A short but well referenced article on a historical figure.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    Not applicable: - no figures.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Not applicable: - no figures.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on gaining another GA for an Archbishop/Saint. Pyrotec (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply